Karnataka High Court

Selvi J.Jayalalitha vs State, By The Superintendent Of Police on 11 May, 2015

Author:
C.R.Kumaraswamy

Bench:
C.R.Kumaraswamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MAY, 2015

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.R.KUMARASWAMY

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.835 OF 2014
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.836 OF 2014
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.837 OF 2014
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.838 OF 2014
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.17 OF 2015
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.18 OF 2015
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.19 OF 2015
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.20 OF 2015
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.21 OF 2015
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.22 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

IN CRL. A. NO.835/2014
SELVI J. JAYALALITHA
D/O THIRU LATE JAYARAM
AGED 66 YEARS
R/O VEDHA NILAYAM
36, POES GARDEN
CHENNAI-600 086. ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI. L. NAGESHWARA RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI. HARIKUMAR G. NAIR AND SRI. GAUTAM BHARADWAJ,
ADVOCATES FOR SRI. B. KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S. SENTHIL AND SRI. K.C. PANEERSELVAM,
ADVOCATES)

IN CRL.A. NO.836/2014
N. SASIKALA NATARAJAN
W/O THIRU M. NATARAJAN
AGED 60 YEARS
18, 3RD CROSS EAST ABHIRAMAPURAM
CHENNAI- 600 018 ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. R. BASANT, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. C. MANISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

IN CRL. A. NO.837/2014
V. N. SUDHAKARAN
S/O Tr. T.T.VIVEKANANDAN
OCC: NIL, NOW R/O No.66
HABIBULLAH ROAD, T. NAGAR
CHENNAI- 600 017 ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. T. SUDANTIIRAM, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. R.
ANBUKARASU AND SRI. MURTHY RAO, ADVOCATES)

IN CRL. A. NO.838/2014
TMT. J. ELAVARASI
W/O LATE Tr. N. JAYARAMAN
OCC: NIL, R/O No.31
MANNAI NAGAR, MANNARGUDI
A.T.PANNERSELVAM DISTRICT
PIN- 613 001 ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. T. SUDANTIRAM, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. A.
ASOKAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE, BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION SPECIAL
INVESTIGATION CELL
CHENNAI-600 006. ...COMMON RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. B.V. ACHARYA, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
SRI. SANDESH J CHOUTA, ADVOCATE, APPOINTED TO
ASSIST SPL.PP VIDE NOTIFICATION NO.LAW 01 LCE 2015,
DATED 28.04.2015 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF
KARNATAKA)

CRL. A. NO.835/2014 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374
(2) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 PRAYING
THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE BOTH DATED: 27.09.2014 PASSED BY THE 36TH
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL
COURT FOR TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CASES AGAINST KUM.
JAYALALITHA AND OTHERS) AT BANGALORE IN
SPL.C.C.NO.208/2004 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 13(1)(e) READ WITH
SECTION 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT
AND UNDER SECTION 120-B OF
INDIAN PENAL CODE

READ WITH SECTION 13(1)(e) READ WITH SECTION 13(2)
OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT AND THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS,
AND TO PAY 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 UNDER SECTION 13(1)(e) READ WITH
SECTION 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT
AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 IS SENTENCED TO
UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF SIX
MONTHS AND TO PAY A FINE OF RS. 1 LAKH, IN DEFAULT
TO PAY THE FINE AMOUNT, SHE SHALL UNDERGO
FURTHER IMPRISONMENT FOR ONE MONTH - FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 120-B OF
INDIAN
PENAL CODE
READ WITH SECTION 13(2) OF PREVENTION
OF CORRUPTION ACT.

CRL.A. NO. 836/2014 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374
(2) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2 PRAYING
THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION
DATED: 27.09.2014 PASSED BY THE 36TH ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (SPECIAL COURT FOR
TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CASES AGAINST KUM.JAYALALITHA
AND OTHERS) AT BANGALORE IN SPL.C.C.NO.208/2004 -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2 FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 120-B OF
INDIAN
PENAL CODE
READ WITH SECTION 13(1)(e) READ WITH
SECTION 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,
1988 AND UNDER SECTION 109 OF
INDIAN PENAL CODE

READ WITH SECTION 13(1)(e) READ WITH SECTION 13(2)
OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT AND THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2 IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS,
AND TO PAY A FINE OF RS.10 CRORES. IN DEFAULT TO
PAY THE FINE AMOUNT, SHE SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER
IMRPISONMENT FOR ONE YEAR -FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 109 OF
INDIAN PENAL
CODE
READ WITH SECTION 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2 IS
SENTENCED TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMRISONMENT FOR A
PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AND TO PAY A FINE OF
RS.10,000/- . IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE FINE AMOUNT, SHE
SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER IMPRISONMENT FOR ONE
MONTH - FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 120-B OF
INDIAN PENAL CODE
READ WITH
SECTION 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT.

CRL. A. NO.837/2014 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374
(2) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3 PRAYING
THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE BOTH DATED: 27.09.2014 PASSED BY THE 36TH
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (SPECIAL
COURT FOR TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CASES AGAINST KUM.
JAYALALITHA AND OTHERS) AT BANGALORE IN
SPL.C.C.NO.208/2004 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3 FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 120-B OF
INDIAN PENAL
CODE
READ WITH SECTION 13 (1)(e) READ WITH
SECTION 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,
1988 AND UNDER SECTION 109 OF
INDIAN PENAL CODE

READ WITH SECTION 13(1)(e) READ WITH SECTION 13(2)
OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT AND THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3 IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS,
AND TO PAY A FINE OF RS.10 CRORES. IN DEFAULT TO
PAY THE FINE AMOUNT, HE SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER
IMPRISONMENT FOR ONE YEAR - FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 109 OF
INDIAN PENAL
CODE
READ WITH SECTION 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3 IS
SENTENCED TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A
PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AND TO PAY A FINE OF
RS.10,000/-. IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE FINE AMOUNT, HE
SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER IMPRISONMENT FOR ONE
MONTH - FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 120-B OF
INDIAN PENAL CODE
READ WITH
SECTION 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT.

CRL.A. NO.838/2014 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374
(2) OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.4 PRAYING
THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE BOTH DATED: 27.09.2014 PASSED BY THE 36TH
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (SPECIAL
COURT FOR TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CASES AGAINST KUM.
JAYALALITHA AND OTHERS) AT BANGALORE IN
SPL.C.C.NO.208/2004 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.4 FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 120-B OF
INDIAN PENAL
CODE
READ WITH SECTION 13(1)(e) READ WITH SECTION
13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT AND UNDER
SECTION 109 OF
INDIAN PENAL CODE
READ WITH
SECTION 13(1)(e) READ WITH SECTION 13(2) OF
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT AND THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.4 IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS,
AND TO PAY A FINE OF RS.10 CRORES. IN DEFAULT TO
PAY THE FINE AMOUNT, SHE SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER
IMPRISONMENT FOR ONE YEAR - FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 109 OF
INDIAN PENAL
CODE
READ WITH SECTION 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.4 IS
SENTENCED TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A
PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AND TO PAY A FINE OF
RS.10,000/-. IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE FINE AMOUNT, SHE
SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER IMPRISONMENT FOR ONE
MONTH- FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
120-B OF
INDIAN PENAL CODE
READ WITH SECTION
13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT.

IN CRL.A.NO.17/2015
BETWEEN:

INDO DOHA CHEMICALS AND
PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR. V. R. KULOTHUNGAN
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.3, 3RD STREET, SUBRAMAIYA NAGAR
MOOVASANPET
CHENNAI - 600 091 ...APPELLANT

(SRI.UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S.N.D KULASHEKARA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K. SRIHARI, ADVOCATE)

IN CRL.A.NO.18/2015
SIGNORA BUSINESS ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
K.KUMARAVELAN
SON OF V.KALIAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT No.14-B, 40TH STREET
NANGANALLUR, CHENNAI ...APPELLANT

(SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S.N.D. KULASHEKARA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K. SHRIHARI, ADVOCATE)

IN CRL.A.NO.19/2015
RAMRAJ AGRO MILLS LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
Mr. V. R. KULOTHUNGAN
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
No.2 WELLINGTON PLAZA, NO.90
ANNA SALAI
CHENNAI - 600 002 ...APPELLANT

(SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S.N.D. KULASHEKARA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K. SRIHARI, ADVOCATE)

IN CRL.A.NO.20/2015
M/S . LEX PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT (P) LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
V. S. SIVAKUMAR
SHOP NO.21, WELLINGTON PLAZA
10, ANNA SALAI
CHENNAI - 600 002 ...APPELLANT

(SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S.N.D. KULASHEKARA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K. SRIHARI, ADVOCATE)

IN CRL.A.NO.21/2015
M/S. MEADOW AGRO FARMS (PRIVATE) LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR.P.R.SHANMUGAM
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO. T 20/2, COASTAL ROAD
BESANT NAGAR
CHENNAI- 600 090 ...APPELLANT

(SRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S.N.D. KULASHEKARA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K. SRIHARI, ADVOCATE)

IN CRL.A.NO.22/2015

M/S. RIVERWAY AGRO PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR.R.KUMAR
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
SHOP NO. 19, GROUND FLOOR
WELLINGTON PLAZA
NO.90, ANNA SALAI
CHENNAI ...APPELLANT

(SRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S.N.D. KULASHEKARA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K. SRIHARI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION CELL
CHENNAI

2. J. JAYALALITHA
D/O JAYARAM
AGED 66 YEARS
81/36, POES GARDEN
CHENNAI- 600086

3. N.SASIKALA
D/O VIVEKANANDAN
18, 3RD CROSS
EAST ABHIRAMAPURAM
CHENNAI- 600018

4. V. N. SUDHAKARAN
S/O VIVEKANANDAN
9, 9TH CROSS STREET
KAPALEESWARAR NAGAR
NEELANGARAI
CHENNAI-600 014

5. J. ELAVARASI
W/O JAYARAMAN (LATE)
181/69, HABIBULLAH ROAD
T. NAGAR
CHENNAI- 600 017 ...COMMON RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B.V. ACHARYA, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
FOR R1)
(BY SRI.S.SENTHIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
(BY SRI.C.MANISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
(BY SRI. MOORTHY RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
(BY SRI.A.ASOKAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-5)

CRL.A. NO. 17/2015 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 454
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BY THE ADVOCATE, FOR
THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:
27.09.2014 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE AND XXXVI
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-37)
AT BANGALORE IN SPL.C.C.NO.208/2004 FILED AS
ANNEXURE-E IN SO FAR AS THE CONFISCATION OF THE
PROPERTIES OF THE APPELLANT.
CRL.A. NO.18/2015 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 454
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BY THE ADVOCATE.,
FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED: 27.09.2014 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE AND
XXXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH-37) AT BANGALORE IN SPL.C.C.NO.208/2004)
FILED AS ANNEXURE-J IN SO FAR AS THE CONFISCATION
OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE APPELLANT AND FURTHER
PASS AN ORDER WITHDRAWING THE ATTACHMENT MADE
IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE APPELLANT.

CRL.A. NO.19/2015 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 454
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BY THE ADVOCATE FOR
THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:
27.09.2014 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE AND XXXVI
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-37)
AT BANGALORE IN SPL.C.C.NO.208/2004 FILED AS
ANNEXURE-J IN SO FAR AS THE CONFISCATION OF THE
PROPERTIES OF THE APPELLANT.

CRL.A. NO.20/2015 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 454
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BY THE ADVOCATE FOR
THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:
27.09.2014 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE AND XXXVI
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-37)
AT BANGALORE IN SPL.C.C.NO.208/2004 FILED AS
ANNEXURE-P IN SO FAR AS THE CONFISCATION OF THE
PROPERTIES OF THE APPELLANT.

CRL.A. NO.21/2015 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 454
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BY THE ADVOCATE, FOR
THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:
27.09.2014 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE AND XXXVI
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-37)
AT BANGALORE IN SPL.C.C.NO.208/2004 FILED AS
ANNEXURE-J IN SO FAR AS THE CONFISCATION OF THE
PROPERTIES OF THE APPELLANT.

CRL.A. NO.22/2015 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 454
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BY THE ADVOCATE, FOR
THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:
27.09.2014 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE AND XXXVI
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-37)
AT BANGALORE IN SPL.C.C.NO.208/2004 FILED AS
ANNEXURE-J IN SO FAR AS THE CONFISCATION OF THE
PROPERTIES OF THE APPELLANT.

THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 11.03.2015,COMING ON
FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT,THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

COMMON JUDGMENT

Crl. A. No.835/2014 is filed under
Section 374 (2)
of

Code of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the

appellant/accused No.1 praying that this Hon'ble Court

may be pleased to set aside the judgment and order of

conviction and sentence both dated: 27.09.2014 passed by

the 36th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special

Court for trial of criminal cases against Kum. J. Jayalalitha

and others) at Bangalore in Spl.C.C.No.208/2004

convicting the appellant/accused No.1 for the offence

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

of Prevention of Corruption Actand under
Section 120-B
of

Indian Penal Code read with
Section 13(1)(e)
read with

Section 13(2)
of Prevention of Corruption Act and the

appellant/accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of four years, and to pay 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 under
Section 13(1)(e)
read with

Section 13(2)
of Prevention of Corruption Act and the

appellant/accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine

of Rs.1 lakh, in default to pay the fine amount, she shall

undergo further imprisonment for one month - for the

offence punishable under
Section 120-B
of Indian Penal

Code read with
Section 13(2)
of Prevention of Corruption

Act.

Crl.A. No. 836/2014 is filed under Section 374 (2) of

code of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the

appellant/accused no.2 praying that this Hon'ble Court

may be pleased to set aside the judgment and order of

conviction dated: 27.09.2014 passed by the 36th Additional

City Civil and Sessions Judge, (Special Court for trial of

criminal cases against Kum.J Jayalalitha and others) at

Bangalore in Spl.C.C.No.208/2004-convicting

appellant/accused no.2 for the offence punishable under

Section 120-B
of Indian Penal Code read with
section

13(1)(e)
read with
Section 13(2)
of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988
and under
Section 109
of Indian

Penal Code read with
Section 13(1)(e)
read with
Section

13(2)
of Prevention of Corruption Act and the

appellant/accused No.2 is sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of four years, and to pay a fine

of Rs.10 crores. In default to pay the fine amount, she

shall undergo further imprisonment for one year -for the

offence punishable under
Section 109
of Indian Penal Code

read with
Section 13(2)
of Prevention of Corruption Act

and the appellant/accused No.2 is sentenced to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay

a fine of Rs.10,000/- . In default to pay the fine amount,

she shall undergo further imprisonment for one month -

for the offence punishable under
Section 120-B
of Indian

Penal Code read with
Section 13(2)
of Prevention of

Corruption Act.

Crl. A. No.837/2014 is filed under
Section 374 (2)
of

Code of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the

appellant/accused No.3 praying that this Hon'ble Court

may be pleased to set aside the judgment and order of

convicting and sentence both dated: 27.09.2014 passed by

the 36th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (Special
Court for trial of criminal cases against Kum. J Jayalalitha

and others) at Bangalore in Spl.C.C.No.208/2004 -

convicting the appellant/accused No.3 for the offence

punishable under
Section 120-B
of Indian Penal Code read

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

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under
Section 109

of Indian Penal Code read with
Section 13(1)(e)
read with

Section 13(2)
of Prevention of Corruption Act and the

appellant/accused No.3 is sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of four years, and to pay a fine

of Rs.10 crores. In default to pay the fine amount, he

shall undergo further imprisonment for one year - for the

offence punishable under
Section 109
of Indian Penal Code

read with
Section 13(2)
of Prevention of Corruption Act

and the appellant/accused No.3 is sentenced to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay

a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default to pay the fine amount, he

shall undergo further imprisonment for one month - for

the offence punishable under
Section 120-B
of Indian

Penal Code read with
section 13(2)
of Prevention of

Corruption Act.
Crl.A. No.838/2014 is filed under
Section 374 (2)
of

Code of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the

appellant/accused No.4 praying that this Hon'ble Court

may be pleased to set aside the judgment and order of

conviction and sentence both dated: 27.09.2014 passed by

the 36th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (Special

Court for trial of criminal cases against Kum. Jayalalitha

and others) at Bangalore in Spl.C.C.No.208/2004 -

convicting the appellant/accused No.4 for the offence

punishable under
Section 120-B
of Indian Penal Code read

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

Prevention of Corruption Act and under
Section 109
of

Indian Penal Code read with
Section 13(1)(e)
read with

Section 13(2)
of Prevention of Corruption act and the

appellant/accused No.4 is sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of four years, and to pay a fine

of Rs.10 crores. In default to pay the fine amount, she

shall undergo further imprisonment for one year - for the

offence punishable under
Section 109
of Indian Penal Code

read with
Section 13(2)
of Prevention of Corruption Act

and the appellant/accused No.4 is sentenced to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay
a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default to pay the fine amount,

she shall undergo further imprisonment for one month- for

the offence punishable under
Section 120-B
of Indian

Penal Code read with
Section 13(2)
of Prevention of

Corruption Act.

Crl.A. No. 17/2015 is filed under
Section 454
Code of

Criminal Procedure by the advocate, for the appellant

praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside

the order dated: 27.09.2014 passed by the Special Judge

and XXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-

37) at Bangalore in Spl.C.C.No.208/2004 filed as

Annexure-E in so far as the confiscation of the properties

of the appellant.

Crl.A. No.18/2015 is filed under
Section 454
Code of

Criminal Procedure by the advocate, for the appellant

praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set

aside the order dated: 27.09.2014 passed by the Special

Judge and XXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge

(CCH-37) at Bangalore in Spl.C.C.No.208/2004) filed as

Annexure-J in so far as the confiscation of the properties

of the appellant and further pass an order withdrawing the
attachment made in respect of the properties of the

appellant.

Crl.A. No.19/2015 is filed under
Section 454
Code of

Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the appellant

praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set

aside the order dated: 27.09.2014 passed by the Special

Judge and XXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge

(CCH-37) at Bangalore in Spl.C.C.No.208/2004 filed as

Annexure-J in so far as the confiscation of the properties

of the appellant.

Crl.A. No.20/2015 is filed under
Section 454
Code of

Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the appellant

praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set

aside the order dated: 27.09.2014 passed by the Special

Judge and XXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge

(CCH-37) at Bangalore in Spl.C.C.No.208/2004 filed as

Annexure-P in so far as the confiscation of the properties

of the appellant.

Crl.A. No.21/2015 is filed under
Section 454
Code of

Criminal Procedure by the advocate, for the appellant

praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set
aside the order dated: 27.09.2014 passed by the Special

Judge and XXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge

(CCH-37) at Bangalore in Spl.C.C.No.208/2004 filed as

Annexure-J in so far as the confiscation of the properties

of the appellant.

Crl.A. No.22/2015 is filed under
Section 454
Code of

Criminal Procedure by the advocate, for the appellant

praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set

aside the order dated: 27.09.2014 passed by the Special

Judge and XXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge

(CCH-37) at Bangalore in Spl.C.C.No.208/2004 filed as

Annexure-J in so far as the confiscation of the properties

of the appellant.

2. The private complaint filed by the complainant-

Dr.Subramanian Swamy, President, Janatha Party, No.1,

Papanasam Sivan Salai, Mylapore, Madras-600 004, in

Criminal Case No.3238 of 1996, against Ms.J.Jayalalitha,

Former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, 36, Poes Garden,

Madras - 600 086, under
Section 200
Cr.P.C. alleging

offence punishable under
Section 13(1)(e)
of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, reads as under:
"The complainant above named states as

follows:-

1. The Complainant is in active
political life, having been a Member of
Parliament for four terms, and a Senior
Cabinet Minister in the Union Ministry holding
the portfolios of Commerce, Law and Justice.
He is the President of the Janatha Party, a
National party recognized by the Election
Commission of India.

2. The complainant has been taking a
consistent and serious interest in eliminating
corruption from public life. Alarmed at the
high degree of corruption and misuse of power
and abuse of power for achieving the goal for
accumulating wealth to the level of "Everest"
that has been taking place in the state of Tamil
Nadu, the complainant is taking all steps to
curb if not to eliminate in this State, which is
his home State of Tamil Nadu.

3. The accused Ms. J Jayalalitha has
become the Chief Minister on 24.06.1991. The
whole of Tamil Nadu expected good and able
administration, but their hope vanished since
the accused Ms. J Jayalalitha instead of
governing the State for the welfare of the
people at large jointed in league with others
and in particular her accomplice and partner in
business Ms. Sasikala, have collaborated,
colluded and conspired to amass wealth, both
moveable and immovable in the State of Tamil
Nadu as well as abroad using her position and
power as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu for
which Ms. Sasikala has functioned as an extra
- constitutional authority. The Complainant is
confining his complaint against the former
Chief Minister alone since she was a public
servant under the provisions of
Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988
for offences committed
by her under
Section 13(1)(e)
of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Section 13(1)(e)
reads thus:

"13. CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT BY A
PUBLIC SERVANT:-
(1) a public servant is said to commit the
offence of criminal misconduct....
(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in
possession or has, at anytime 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."

4. The complainant states that
according to the evidence he has collected
from various sources including through
Parliament by putting question and getting
authoritative answers from the Government,
the accused person has committed the offence
and is guilty and warrants prosecution.

5. The complainant states that Ms. J
Jayalalitha was a public servant within the
meaning of the
Prevention of Corruption Act,
. Having coming to know about the non-
filing of Income-tax returns for years and the
Income Tax Department sleeping over this, as
a Member of Parliament filed an 'Unstarred
question No.2309 seeking an answer from the
Rajya Sabha on 8.12.1992. As soon as the
question was filed, the accused some-how
came to know that the subject matter of that
question relates to her Income-tax
immediately rushed to file her tax returns for
three years running on the same day, i.e.
20.11.1992. Subsequently, the complainant
was surprised from the answer given to him in
the Rajya Sabha to his 'Unstarred question
No.57, on 23.2.1993. The answer revealed
that:-
Her Wealth during 1989-90 was ZERO
Her Wealth during 1990-91 was Rs.1.89 Crores
Her Wealth during 1991-92 was Rs.2.60 Crores
Her Wealth during 1992-93 was Rs.5.82 Crores
And subsequent investigation by the

Complainant revealed that:

Her Wealth during 1993-94 was Rs.21.33
Crores; and
Her Wealth during 1994-95 was Rs.38.21
Crores

It is a known fact that the accused was
receiving Re.1/-(One Rupee only) as her salary
as Chief Minister. Adding her grape garden
produce in Hyderabad the rise in wealth to an
unimaginable and even un-dreamable by more
than 21 times in her declared wealth from
Rs.1.89 Crores to Rs.38.21 Crores between
1990-91 and 1994-95 is wholly incredible.
Upon my insistence, the Income-Tax
Department issued notices under
Section
143(3)
of the Income-Tax Act and under

Section 16(3)
of the Wealth Tax Act asking her
to explain her prima facie incredible
assessment.

6. The complainant is not listing all
the illegal acquisitions in this complaint but
under the law it will suffice if the admitted
income of the public servant, the accused Ms. J
Jayalalitha, and the assets which are acquired
by the said public servant subsequent to her
assuming the public office are not
commensurate.

7. The first acquisition of immovable
property immediately after assuming power as
the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu was 1.1407
ground of vacant urban land abutting her Poes
garden, building (No.36, Poes Garden)
comprised in plot No.31-A, comprised in
R.S.No.1567/63, Mylapore Division, Block
No.31 of Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk on
22.7.1991 for Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight
lakhs only) through the value of the property
even a according to the guideline value is
Rs.45 lakhs. Even 8 lakhs of rupees was paid
by way of cheques drawn on 3 different banks
including one at Hyderabad which proves her
financial status and the debits in the various
bank accounts in her name at the particular
time:

Rs.1,00,000/- (SB Account No.5158,
Bank of Madurai, Anna Nagar Branch, Madras).
(What are the reasons for operating a SB
Account at Anna Nagar, far away from Poes
Garden). Rs.4,00,000/- SB Account No.23832,
Canara Bank, Mylapore. Rs.3,00,000/- SB
Account No.20614 Central Bank of India,
secunderabad.
8. The complainant further states that
the accused person J.Jayalalitha had shown
'NIL' income and 'NIL' wealth since 1985-86
who had ceased to be a film actress since
1979, and according to the evidence collected
by him, she had to depend on others for her
day to day living. But that such a person is
now in a position to declare her wealth in
1994-95 as Rs.38.21 Crores (though this
amount is negligible as against the true state
of affairs).

9. The complainant states that Ms.
J.Jayalalitha had to depend on the Indian
Bank, Abhiramapuram Branch for paying the
sale consideration to the Government for
having purchased the TANSI LAND. The
execution of General Power of Attorney
authorising her business partner Sasikala to
execute the necessary loan documents, getting
the loan sanctioned the same day and the
issue of drafts in favour of the Government
simultaneously within ONE DAY speaks about
the abuse of state authority in this regard,
forcing the Bank Authorities to grant loan to
the tune of crores on the security of the
property proposed to be purchased which is
unknown in the history of administration of
banks.
10. The complainant states that in a
number of cases, the Supreme Court has laid
that "known sources of income" must be taken
to mean "Sources known to the complainant",
and not sources know to the public servant.
Besides, once cognizance is taken of the
complaint, the prosecution has to only show
that the accused or some person on her behalf
is in possession of pecuniary resources for
which the public servant or the said some
other person cannot satisfactorily account for
and once that is established, it is the duty of
the court to presume that the accused is guilty,
unless the accused proves the contrary. The
onus thus shifts to the accused.

11. The complainant states that the
accused person stopped acting in cinema films
and other films in 1979, long before she
became the Chief Minister in June 1991. After
she had become the Chief Minister in June
1991, she has been drawing a salary of Re.1/-
only as her monthly salary. She is said to
have an orchard at Hyderabad out of which she
does not appear to have derived any income
therefrom prior to 1990-91 as is evident from
the non-submissions of her income-tax return
makes one to conform that she had no income
even from the Orchard said to have been
owned by her. Though repeated here again
she had to depend on other for her livelihood
as evidenced form the letters written by her
own hand her wealth was declared as ZERO in
1989-90, therefore on her own declaration,
here income from the Orchard at Hyderabad
could be taken as 'negligible' if not zero, as not
to require payment of tax upto 1989-90.

12. The complainant states that is this
back-ground her subsequent declarations of
wealth and income for succeeding years,
confirmed in answer to a Parliament Question
are astounding and are as follows:-

Year Incomedeclared taxable/Agriculture Wealth Declared

1990-91 86,860/8,00,000 1.89 Crores
1991-92 4,48,660/9,00,000 2.60 Crores
1992-93 6,64,530/9,50,000 5.82 Crores

(Source:1990-91 to 1992-93: Rajya Sabha
unstarred question No.57, answered on
23.2.1993).

13. It is surpasses anyones'
imagination as to how and swelling such a
steep increase of wealth and income would be
possible for a person who is supposed to be
receiving Re.1/- only as her monthly salary.
Her non-reply to the notices issued under

section 143(2)
of Income-tax Act and under

section 16(2)
of the Wealth Tax Act speaks for
itself and confirms the view that she had no
answer for such a seeping level of income and
value of wealth. Further, the rush filing of
income/wealth returns for the assessment
years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93 on
20.11.1992, 2.11.1992 and 23.11.1992
respectively is one stroke immediately on my
filing Unstarred Question No.3274 (and
Answered on 15.12.1994) having perhaps
coming to know in advance of the Parliament's
question which requires 2 weeks' notice to the
Parliament Secretariat, proves the deliberate
attempts made by her to suppress her income
from tax. But for the complainant's raising this
issue in parliament, this would not have come
to light.
14. The complainant further states that
though she is getting a salary of Re.1/- per
month, she had been giving donations in her
own name to the "needy" and giving publicity
to the same at the Government Cost. A list of
such donations is enclosed.

15. The complainant further states that
Ms.N.Sasikala is said to be the aid of the
accused and described as 'unborn sister', she is
the wife of Mr.Natarajan, who hailed from a
lower middle class agricultural family, and who
was in Government Service from 1976 to 1991
in the Information Department. He was once
removed from services and reinstated without
back wages and their only source of income
was the salary which he had been receiving
during the said aid period. The accused person
Ms.J.Jayalalitha in league with Ms.Sasikala and
her close relatives have accumulated
properties and began to purchase properties
after properties which are prestigious and
assets given below are only a very negligible
part of the total ill gotten wealth and
properties acquired by the accused person as
well as her business partner Sasikala and her
relatives and even these are totally
incompatible with the known sources of income
of the accused Ms.Jayalalitha and Sasikala and
her relatives. The following details have been
gathered and collected from published sources
in the media. Items 1 and 2 below are
admitted.

a. The Capital and investment of M/s
Jaya Publications which is about Rs.30 Crores
including the purchase of TANSI LAND for
which Rs.182 Crores have been paid and a
sum of Rs.26.55 Lakhs paid as stamp duty.

b. J. Jay TV Pvt. Ltd. and the
associate Super Duper TV Ltd. of capital of
Rs.100 Crores.
c. M/s. Sasi Enterprises situated at
No.14, Ground Floor, Parsn Manare, 602, Anna
Salai, Ms.Jayalalitha is a partner.

d. Brahadeeswara Hospital in
Thanjavur estimated to be more than Rupees
One Crore purchased by Late Dr.Vinodhagan,
brother of Ms.Sasikala.

e. A luxury wedding hall (marriage
hall) comprising of 25000 square feet at
Thiruthuraipoondi belonging to Ms.Sasikala
worth more than rupees one crore.

f. Purchase of "Divan Bungalow" at
Mannargudi along with land measuring more
than 25000 square feet worth several lakhs of
rupees.

g. "Tamil Arasi Press", Tamil Arasi
Maligai, Madras 18, owned by Mr.Natarajan,
husband of Sasikala.

h. Sengamala Women's College under
construction on 10 acres of land in
Sundarakottai at an estimated cost of Rs.3
Crores.

i. Ramraj Agro-rice and oil extraction
plant in Tiruvarur reported to have been sold
by a liquor baron.
j. M/s J.S.Housing Development -A
real estate company started by Ms.Sasikala
and 5 others which has purchased a property
in Mylapore worth Rs.54 lakhs.

k. A bungalow in Trichy purchased by
Mr.Vivekanandan, and a bungalow in T.Nagar,
Madras purchased by his brother
Mr.Sundaravadanam both are close relatives of
Sasikala.

l. Purchase of land measuring 1.1407
grounds near 36, Poes Garden, Chief
Minister's-residence for Rs.8 lakhs (real value
Rs.45 lakhs).

More evidence of other acquisitions may
be collected by this Hon'ble Court ordering an
investigation.

The above are only some of the known
illegal acquisition of wealth and assets by the
former Chief Minister and accused Ms. J.
Jayalalitha and her own people acting as her
benami. According to the provisions of
Section
13(1)(e)
, if he/she or any person on his/her
behalf is liable for punishment. In the case of
acquisition of the above and other properties,
though stands in some other persons' name,
but in reality it belongs to the accused person
and therefore liable for punishment.
16. The complainant has thus
established a prima facie case against the
accused person Ms. J. Jayalalitha, the former
Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu for offences
committed by her under the provisions of

Section 13(1) (e)
of the prevention of

Corruption Act
.

17. The complainant states that
according to the provisions of the
Prevention of
Corruption Act
, for taking cognizance of
offences under the
Prevention of Corruption
Act
against Public Servants, the Chief Minister
of Tamil Nadu, sanction of the Governor of
Tamil Nadu is necessary. But since the
accused ceased to be the public servant and
the offences committed by her were during the
period when she was a public servant the
sanction of the Governor is not necessary.

18. The complainant therefore prays
that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to take
cognizance of this complaint privately filed by
the complainant against the accused for
offences committed by her under the
provisions of
Section 13(1) (e)
of the
Prevention of Corruption Act and render
justice.
Madras:
Dated: COMPLAINANT"
LIST OF WITNESSES OF BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:

1. Dr.Subramanian Swamy, No.1, Papanasam
Salai, Madras-5.

Further list of witnesses will be furnished
in due course.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPLAINANT

Sl.No. Date Description of Document

01 08.12.1992 Rajya Sabha proceedings relating to
Unstarred Question No.2309

02 08.12.1992 Rajya Sabha proceedings relating to
Unstarred Question No.2346

03 08.12.1992 Rajya Sabha proceedings relating to
Unstarred Question No.2329

04 15.12.1992 Rajya Sabha proceedings relating to
Unstarred Question No.3274

05 23.12.1993 Rajya Sabha proceedings relating to
Unstarred Question No.57

06 16.03.1993 Rajya Sabha proceedings relating to
Unstarred Question No.2534

3. The contents of the First Information

Report filed under
Section 154
of Cr.P.C read as

under:

"1. Distt.Madras P.S.Vigilance & Anti-
Corruption
Headquarters,
Madras-6
Year 1996 FIR No.13/AC/96/HQ
Date:18.09.1996

2. (i) Act:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Sections:13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e)
3. (a) Occurrence of Offence: 1991-96

(b) Information received at P.S.

Dt:18.09.1996 Time 1:30 pm

4. Type of information: Written

5. Place of Occurrence: Madras and other

places

(a) Direction and Distance from P.S: South
East about 3 KMS.
Beat No: Does not arise.

(b) Address: No.36, Poes Garden, Madras-

600 086.

(c) In case outside limit of this Police Station,
then the
Name of P.S: Nil
6. Complainant/Informant:

(a) Name. Thiru. V.C.Perumal, IPS.,

(b) Occupation. Inspector - General of

Police.

(c) Address: Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption, No.608, Anna Salai, Madras-600
006.
7. Details of known/suspected/unknown
accused with full particulars:

Selvi J.Jayalalitha
Former Chief Minister of Tamilnadu,

Now residing at
No.36, Poes Garden
Madras-600 086

8. Reasons for delay in reporting by the
Complainant/
Informant: No delay.

9. Particulars of properties stolen/ involved:
Does not arise.

10. Total value of properties stolen involved.
Does not arise.

11. Inquest Report/ U.D. Case No. if any.
Nil

12. F.I.R. Contents (Attach separate sheets, if
required):
The accused held the office of Chief
Minister of Tamil Nadu during the period, June
24, 1991- May 9, 1996. She was a public
servant during this period. She was receiving
a salary of one rupee per month as Chief
Minister.

2. Prior to June 1991, the accused
was having a grape garden at Hyderabad, a
residential house at No.36, Poes garden,
Madras-18, a house property at No.212,
St.Mary's Road, Madras-18, and some landed
property at Cheyyar, North Arcot - Ambedkar
District.

3. There is information that, during
her tenure as the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu,
the accused had acquired a large number of
movable and immovable properties,
constructed new buildings, and acquired
pecuniary resources, which are all far beyond
her known sources of income. Verification of
the information disclosed that the following
were some of the many assets acquired by her
during the above period:-

(i) (a) The accused constructed a
multi-storeyed building at 31-A (currently
merged with 36), Poes Garden, Madras-86
costing about Rs.1.75 crores.

(b) She built a farm house inside the
grape garden at Hyderabad costing about
Rs.50 lakhs.

(c) She made the following deposits of
money:
Sriram Investments, Madras
(Seven deposits in all) : Rs. 98,00,000

Canfin Homes, Madras (FDR 352/94-95)
: Rs.1,00,00,000
Indian Bank
(RIP Deposit:176580)
Abiramapuram Branch, Madras:
Rs.1,00,00,000
Total : Rs.2,98,00,000

(ii) The accused is found to have
acquired the following properties (at the price
noted against each) in the names of the firms
in which she is a partner with Tmt.N.Sasikala
as mentioned below:
Jaya Publications

(i) Land and Building at Plot No. (S) S-7,
Thiru Vi ka Industrial Estate, Guindy,
Madras (4664.60 Sq.ft) bought from
Idayam Publications
Rs.12,60,000/-
(in Document No.3285/91 of 22.9.1991)

(ii) Land and Building in Door No.98/99
(RS No.1639/95) Luz Church Road
Madras from Tr.Suresh Mittal and
Others in Doc.No.282/94 dated
Rs.1,87,000/-
23.06.94(one portion in a 10 ground plot)
Sasi Enterprises

(i) Land and Building at C-62,
ThiruvenkataNagar, Ambattur, Madras 53.
Rs.1,90,000/-
(Document No.509/1994)

(ii) Land and Building at Door No.18,
Plot No.13, III Street,
Abiramapuram,Madras from
Tr.Ramachandran in
Document No.72/93 dated 27-1-93
(1 ground & 1475 sq.ft)
Rs.43,00,000/-
(iii) Land and building at 167/92
Thiru Vi ka Industrial Estate
(63 cents)
Rs.79,54,650/-

4. The accused also acquired
immovable properties valued about Rs.8.9
Crores in the names of persons believed to be
her 'benamis', such as Tmt. N.Sasikala,
Tr.V.N.Sudagaran, Tmt.J.Elavarasi, and others,
and also in the names of the firms alleged to
have been promoted by them. Some of these
are:

Description of Property Price Paid

(a) Wet lands at Payyanoor (Thiruporur
Taluk, Chingleput-MGR Dt)
(Extent:24 acres, 72.5 cents) Rs.19,05,000/-

(b) Land & Building at Door No.
68 & 69 Habibullah Road
T.Nagar, Madras Rs.90,00,000/-

(c) Kalyanamandapam & Land
At 41, Razaack Garden Rd.,
MMDA Colony
Arumbakkam, Madras Rs.15,00,000/-

(d) Tea Estate (900 acres) at
Kodanadu (Kothagiri), styled
The Kodanad Tea Estate Co. Rs.7,60,00,000/-

(e) Plot & House (S.No.93.94/95)
At Mannargudi Town, NQM dt.
(measuring 25035 sq.ft.) Rs. 6,00,000/-
Rs.8,90,05,000/-
5. The accused is found to be having
two bank accounts, viz., SB.No.23832 and CA
No.2018, with Canara Bank, Mylapore, Madras,
Huge inflows of cash are noticed in these
accounts, the sources for which have to be
probed.

6. The acquisition of all the above
said movable and immovable properties worth
about Rs.15.52 crores is believed to be
disproportionate to the known sources of
income of the accused, for which she has to
account satisfactorily. An offence under

Section 13(2)
r/w Sec 13 (1)(e) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act
1988 is disclosed.
It is believed that more items of properties and
pecuniary resources are likely to be unearthed
by means of a through investigation. Hence a
case has to be registered in accordance with
law.

7. Accordingly, I am registering a
case in Cr.No.13/AC/96/HQ
u/s 13(2)
r/w
13(1) (e) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act

1988 against the accused for the purpose of
taking up investigation.
Inspector General of Police
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Madras-6

13. Action taken: Since the above
report reveals commission of offence (s) u/s as
mentioned at item No.2, registered the case
and / directed Thiru. N.Nallamma Naidu Rank
Additional Superintendent of Police, DVAC
Madras to take up the investigation.

F.I.R. read over to the
Complainant/informant, admitted to be
correctly recorded and a copy given to the
Complainant/ informant free of cost.

Sd/-
Signature of the Officer-Incharge, P.
S.
. Signature/ Thumb impression:
Name: V.C.Perumal IPS of the
Complainant/Informant
Rank: IG of Police
No.DVAC Madras

15. Date & Time of dispatch to the court

18.9.96 and 2.00 pm

Submitted to Hon Principal Sessions and
Spl.Judge, Madras.
Sd/-"

4. The Contents of the Charge Sheet reads as

under:
"CHARGE SHEET
Accused

1. Selvi. J Jayalalitha
Former Chief Minister of Tamilnadu
Residing at No.36, Poes Garden, Chennai-86

2. Tmt. Sasikala Natarajan, W/o M. Natarajan
No.18, III Street, East Abiramapuram,
Chennai-4.

3. Tr. V. N. Sudhakaran, S/o T.T. Vivekanandan,
No.68, Habibullah Road, Chennai-17.

4. Tmt. J Elavarasi, W/o Late V. Jayaraman,
No.31, Mannai Nagar, Mannargudi,
A.T. Pannerselvam Dist.

A1 was Chief Minister of Tamilnadu from
24.06.1991 till 13.05.1996. Prior to this, she
was a Member of the Rajya Sabha from April
1984 till 27.01.1989 and a member of
Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly from
27.01.1989 till 30.01.1991. She was a public
servant within the meaning of
Section 2(C)
of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Central
Act 49 of 1988). A2, A3 and A4 are private
individuals.

2) A2 is the wife of one Tr. M.
Natarajan. The said Tr. M. Natarajan had
joined Govt. Service as Publicity Assistant in
the information and Public Relations Dept.,
Govt. of Tamilnadu on 13.07.1970, and was
later promoted as Assistant Director in 1984
and as Deputy Director in 1986 in the same
Dept. He tendered his resignation from Govt.
Service on 1.11.1988, but the resignation was
accepted by Govt. of Tamil Nadu only on
03.04.1991 with retrospective effect. A2 is the
daughter of Tr. C. Vivekanandan, a Medical
Compounder doing private practice, who was
living in a small house at Thattara Street,
Thiruthuraipoondi. Tr. Vivekanandan had
acquired the said house and 7.08 acres of land
through inheritance. A2 was given in marriage
to Tr. M. Natarajan in the early 1970s at
Thanjavur. A2 who was initially an occasional
visitor to the residence of A1 at No.36, Poes
Garden, Chennai-86, came to be permanently
accommodated by A1 there from the year
1988 onwards, and acknowledged by A1 as her
friend-cum-sister (Udanpirvatasagothari). A2
continued to live with A1 at No.36, Poes
Garden, Chennai-86 till the year 1996.

3) A3 is the son of A2's elder sister Tmt.
V. Vanithamani and Tr. T. T. Vivekanandan. He
came to reside at No.36, Poes Garden,
Chennai-86 in the year 1992 while pursuing his
studies at New College, Chennai, and stayed
there till the first quarter of 1997. A1 had
acknowledged and proclaimed A3 as her
"foster son" and had conducted the latter's
marriage with one Tmt. Sathiyalakshmi at
Chennai on 07.09.1995 on a very lavish scale.

4) A4 is the wife of late Tr. V.
Jayaraman, the elder brother of A2. The said
Tr. V. Jayaraman was a Govt. Servant in the
Civil Supplies Dept. and 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.

5) A1 is the daughter of late Tmt. N.R.
Sandhya who was acting in films during the
1960s. A1 was also acting in films during
1964-72. Tmt. N.R. Sandhya died in the year
1971, and as per her Will dated 01.11.1971,
she bequeathed her shares to A1 in the
properties belonging to Natyakala Niketana in
which both were partners. At the time of her
mother's death A1 came to own the following
properties namely:-

i)Land and Building at No.36, Poes
Garden, Chennai-86

ii) House at Plot No.36, Door
No.8/3/1099, Srinagar Officers' Colony,
Hyderabad City.
iii) Lands totally measuring 10.20 acres
in S.No.52 and S.No.50 of Jeedi Metla Village
and S. No.93/1 of Pet Basheerabad Village,
Metchal Taluk, Ranga Reddy District, Andhra
Pradesh with Grape Garden, Farm House and
Servants Quarters.

iv) Land in Survey No.93/2 to the extent
of 3.15 acres in Pet Basheerabad Village (A.P.).

6) The assets which were in the
possession of A1 upto 1987 are found to be
worth only about Rs.7.5 Lakhs as per details
given below:
i) The four items of properties listed in
para-5 above;
ii) Agricultural land 3.43 Acres in Cheyyur
Taluk, now in Anna Dist (as per Doc.
No.4564/81 dated 16.12.1981 of SRO North
Madras)
iii) Anold Ambassador car and an old Contessa
Car
iv) A new Maruthi Car TMA 2466 worth
Rs.60,435/-
v) Company shares

She claimed to have possessed balances
in her bank accounts to the extent of about
Rs.1 lakh, in addition to jewels during the year
1987.
7)Though A1 had floated three business
firms viz., i) M/s. Jaya Publicaitons, ii) Namadu
M.G.R. and iii) M/s. Sasi Enterprises in the
year 1988-90, with A2 and others as her
partners, these firms did not generate any
income. However, between 13.05.1988 and
27.01.1989, when she was Member of
Parliament, A1 had purchased four motor cars
worth Rs.9,12,129/- and on 13.02.1989, she
purchased a Jeep worth Rs.1,04,000/- after
she had become a Member of the Tamil Nadu
Legislative Assembly. Thus during the period
when she was a Member of Parliament and
later as a Member of Legislative Assembly, she
is found to have been acquiring and possessing
pecuniary resources and properties which were
not commensurate with her known sources of
income.

8) The check period for this case has
been set out as 01.07.1991 to 30.04.1996
when A1 held office as Chief Minister of Tamil
Nadu. As on 01.07.1991, A1 is found to have
been in possession of the properties and
pecuniary resources in her name and in the
name of A2 (Tmt. N. Sasikala), who was living
with A1 at 36, Poes Garden, Chennai, to the
extent of Rs.2,01,83,957/-. These includes
properties acquired in the name of M/s. Jaya
Publications, M/s. Sasi Enterprises and
Namadu M.G.R. which had been floated by A1
and A2 with themselves as partners. The
details of the properties are as listed in
Annexur-1 hereto.

9) After 01.07.1991, the acquiring of
assets by A1 had gathered momentum, and
during this period, A3 and A4 also came to live
with A1 and A2, at No.36, Poes Garden,
Chennai-86, which is also the official residence
of A1 as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. During
this period, A1 and A2 together are found to
have floated several firms in the names of A2,
A3 and A4 namely:

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 (P) Ltd.,
x) M/s Ramraj Agro Mills Ltd.,
xi) M/s Signora Business Enterprises (P) Ltd.,
xii) M/s Lex Property Development (P) Ltd.,
xiii) M/s Riverway Agro Products (P) Ltd.,
xiv) M/s Meadow Agro Farms (P) Ltd., and
xv) Indo Doha Chemicals and 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) Marble Marvels
xxviii) Vinod Video Vision
xxix) Fax Universal
xxx) Fresh Mushrooms,
xxxi) M/s Super Duper T.V.and
xxxii) M/s Kodanadu Tea Estate,

In respect of many of these firms, during
the above period, there was no business
activity at all, and in respect of the others, the
activities were more in the nature of acquiring
assets like lands, machinery, buildings etc.,
and were not production oriented. No Income
Tax Returns were filed by these firms. No
assessment for Commercial Tax had also been
done with respect to the businesses of these
firms as the firms had not filed their returns.
A1 also had not filed her Income Tax Returns
for Assessment Years 1987-88 to 1992-93 till
November 1992. When this issue was sought
to be raised in Parliament, A1 filed the Income
Tax Returns suddenly for the above periods in
November 1992.

10) Subsequent to 1.7.1991, assets in
the form of movable and immovable properties
and pecuniary resources like bank deposits,
etc., are found acquired not only in the name
of A.1 but also in the names of A2, A3 and A4
and the firms floated in their names. Scrutiny
of the various bank accounts maintained in the
names of A1 to A4 and in the names of
different firms discloses 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 also frequent transfers
of amounts between one account to the others
to facilitate illegal acquisition of assets. The
huge quantum of such assets, when viewed
along with the facts 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 A.1. Thus A1
while she was a public servant had been in
possession of pecuniary resources and
properties which are disproportionate to her
known source of income, which would
constitute the offence of criminal misconduct
as described in
Sec.13(1) (e)
of Prevention of
Corruption Act 1988, and A2, A3 and A4
facilitated A1 to commit the said offence.

11) There was thus a criminal
conspiracy between A.1 a public Servant and
her associates, viz., A2, A3 and A4, to acquire
and posses properties and pecuniary resources
by A1 in her name and in the names of A2, A3
and A4 and in the names of the various firms
floated by them which are beyond the known
sources of income of A1. Further, A2, A3 and
A4 had, pursuant to the said conspiracy, held
the said properties and pecuniary resources in
their names, and in the names of the firms
floated by them, on behalf of A1. Pursuant to
the said criminal conspiracy, properties,
expensive jewellery, etc., and pecuniary
resources were acquired by A1 in her name
and in the names of A2, A3 and A4 and in the
name of various firms. As on 30-4-96, the
assets thus acquired and possessed by A1 are
found to be worth Rs.66,44,73,573/- as set out
in Annexure II hereto. These include the
assets already with A.1 as on 1-7-1991 (as set
out in Annexure-I hereto). Hence, the
quantum of assets acquired by A1 in her name
and in the names of A2, A3 and A4 and the
firms floated by them during the period
01.07.1991 to 30.04.1996 has been worked
out as Rs.64,42,89,616/- (as set out in
Annexure-V hereto).

12) The incomes from the known
sources of A1 during the period from 01-07-
1991 to 30-04-1996 (hereinafter referred to as
the check period) such as rental incomes,
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 taken and A.1's
salary as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu were
computed. For the purpose of computation,
the incomes of A2, A3 and A4 were also taken
into account. All these work out to a total of
Rs.9,34,26,054/- only (as set out in Annexure-
III hereto). The expenditure of A1 during the
aforementioned check period, including
repayments of principal amount and interest
on loans taken, amounts remitted to
Corporation of Chennai, MMDA and other
authorities, payment to various firms and
individuals through cheques, expenditure on
the marriage of A3, etc., were also assessed.
The total expenditure for the above period has
been assessed as Rs.11,56,56,833/- (as set
out in Annexure-IV hereto). Thus, there was
an excess of expenditure over income during
the check period to the extent of
Rs.2,22,30,779/-(vide Annexure-VI hereto).

13) As on 30-04-1996, A1 a public
servant, is thus 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
disproportionate to her known source of
income to the extent of Rs.66,65,20,395/-
(Annexure-VII hereto), for which she has failed
to account satisfactory. A2, A3 and A4, by
holding a substantial portion of the said assets
on behalf of A1, had intentionally aided A1 and
were parties to the criminal conspiracy with
her.

14) (i) Thus, during the period between
01-07-1991 and 30-04-1996, at Chennai and
other places, A.1 being the Chief Minister of
Tamil Nadu and a public servant, and A2, A3
and A4, were parties to a criminal conspiracy,
having agreed among themselves to commit
the offence of possession by A1 of pecuniary
resources and properties in her name and in
the names of A2, A3 and A4 and the firms
floated by them, which were disproportionate
to the known sources of income of A1 and for
which she has failed to account and A2, A3 and
A4 abetting A1, in the commission of the said
acts by agreeing to hold the properties in their
names on behalf of A1 and thereby A1 to A4
committed an offence punishable under

Section 120-B
Indian Penal Code read with

Section 13(2)
read with
Section 13(1) (e)
of
the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (Central
Act 49/1988).

14) (ii) In pursuance of the said
criminal conspiracy and in the course of the
same transaction, during the said period, at
Chennai and other places, A.1, being a public
servant committed the offence of criminal
misconduct by acquiring and possessing in her
name and in the names of A2, A3 and A4 and
in the names of the firms floated by them,
pecuniary resources and properties which
disproportionate of A1's known sources of
income to the extent of Rs.66,65,20,395/- and
for which she had not satisfactorily accounted
and thereby A1 committed an offence
punishable under
Section 13(2)
read with
13(1)(e) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act

1988 (Central Act 49 of 1988).

14) (iii) In pursuance of the said
criminal conspiracy and in the course of the
same transaction, during the said period, A2,
A3 and A4 abetted A1 in the commission of the
said offence of criminal misconduct by allowing
A1 to acquire a substantial portion of the
properties and pecuniary resources in their
names and by holding such properties and
pecuniary resources on behalf of A1 which are
disproportionate to the known sources of
income of A1 and for which A1 had failed to
satisfactorily account and thereby A2, A3 and
A4 committed an offence punishable under
section 109 Indian penal Code read with

section 13(2)
read with
Section 13(1) (e)
of
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (Central Act
49 of 1988).

15) This Final Report (Charge Sheet) is
being filed subject to the Provision of
Section
173(8)
Cr.P.C.
16) Sanction accorded by Governor of
Tamil Nadu and issued in G.O.Ms.No.614,
Public (SC Department dated 02.06.1997 to
prosecute A-1 in the Court of Law is enclosed.
Encl: Annexures I to VII

Sd/-

Superintendent of Police
Vigilance & Anti Corruption,
Special Investigation
Chennai-600 035"
5. The depositions of the prosecution witnesses

are extracted as under:

The depositions of witnesses have been typed as it is

wherein the prosecution and defence have strongly relied

on those witnesses.

PW.1- P.V.Rajaram, PW.2 - E.V.Chakravarthy, PW.3 -
D. Thangavelu, PW.9- Sadagopan, PW.39- Venu,
PW.50- Sivasankaran, PW.74-S. Ramaiah, PW.77-
Janaki, PW.99- D.Raghavalu arethe Sub Registrars.

PW.4- R.Ramachandran, PW.5 - S.Ranganathan, PW.6 -
Gopal @ Gopalasamy, PW.8 - S.Sugumaran, PW.10 -
Selvaraj, PW.11 - Arunachalam, PW.12 - Radhakrishnan,
PW.13 - Ellappan, PW.14 - Egavalli, PW.15 - Naresh
Shroft, PW.16 - Jagadeesh Raja, PW.17 - Sundari
Shankar are the Sellers, who gave permission for
constructions.

PW.7- Y.M.Ganesan,Administrative District Registrar.

PW.18-Sachidhanandham, District Registrar(Suspension)

PW.19 - M.Subash Chandra, Senior Planning Organiser,
Chennai - M.M.D.A. Chennai.

PW.20 - G.Balakrishnan, Retd. Chief Engineer, Chennai
Corporation.

PW.21 -N.Narayanan, Superintendent of Engineer-Tamil
Nadu Electricity Board.
PW.22 - S.Palanichamy, Doctor.

PW.23-S.Ambalavanan, Advocate, who speaks about
drafting of sale deed.

PW.24 - Danaliwala, General Power of Attorney Holder of
A3.

PW.25- P.B.Bhandari, PW.26 - Kamal Batcha, PW.27 -
Selvirangam, PW.28 - D.Krishnan, PW.29 - Shermuga
Durai, PW.30 - Uma Shankar Modi, PW.31 - Rathnavelu,
PW.32 - Baby, PW.33 - Mathivanan, PW.34 - Suresh,
PW.35 - Swaminathan, PW.36 - Balasubramanian,
PW.37 - Ajmal Khan, PW.38-Saleem Khan are the
Sellers.

PW.40 - Gangai Amaran, Seller of land.

PW.41 - Mahavirchand, PW.42- A.Janarthanam,who
have sold the land to Sasi enterprises.

PW.43- S.Nageswara Rao, PW.44- Shivaji Rao, who
speak about filling up of pay slips.

PW.45 -S.Shankar, Chartered Accountant.

PW.46 - T.G.Gopinath, who speaks about property sold to
A3.

PW.47 - K.Muthian, who speaks about various aspects of
horticulture crops namely coconut, mangoes around the
residence of A1 and also laying of pipes.
PW.48 -K.Thiyagarajan, Green Farm House-sold property.

PW.49 -S. Lakshmi Narasimhan, Manager of Sriram
Investment Ltd. speaks about the interest amount of
Rs.29,32,583/- from 1-7-91 to 30-04-1996.

PW.51 -V. Amanullah Maraicoir, Seller of Lex property-
A4.

PW.52 - M.Gandhi, who speaks about Ramraj Agro Mills
Company- speaks about paddy grinding machine

PW.53 -R.Ashokan, who speaks about capacity of grinding
tones of paddy everyday.

PW.54 - P.L.Deenadayalandoes not speak anything about
purchase.

PW.55- K.Manavalan, PW.56- P.S.Rajaram, who speak
about Meadow Agro Farm Pvt. Ltd.

PW.57 - R.Gopal, Commercial Manager-VSD Motors
speaks about invoice of vehicles.

PW.58 - K.S.Jayaraman, who speaks about price of
Swaraj Mazda, Maruthi 800, Maruthi Gypsy in 1985.

PW.59- V.Sekar, who speaks about Tempo Trax and
invoice dated 18.11.93 as they sold Tempo Traveler Mini
Bus to Sasi Enterprises.

PW.60- V.R.Ramachandran, who speaks about Swaraj
Mazda sold to A1 on 24-3-88.
PW.61 - C.Sundarkumar, Sales Manager at Sunshetty
Motors, who speaks about Invoices, dated 15.5.1990,
29.8.1989.

PW.62 -Dhanraj Stephan, Sales Manager-India Carriage

PW.63 - M.Krishnan, Sales Manager who speaks about
invoice of Ashok Leyland.

PW.64 - Mukesh Tiwari, Manager-Kiwiraj Motors-speaks
about 256 Bajaj vehicles sold to Namadhu MGR.

PW.65- M.Sridhar, PW.66- Subbaiah, PW.67- Kadhar
Mohideen, PW.68- Uma Sekaran,PW.69 - R.Rajendran
are the Regional Transport Officers.

PW.70- K.Venkatesan, who speaks about land sold to
Meadow Agro Farms.

PW.71 -S.Radhakrishnan, Horticulture officer.

PW.72 -S.Raghunathan, Manager-Bharani Hotel-Mahazar
witness.

PW.73 - Murugesan, who speaks about the purchase of
land of A-2.

PW.75 - Thangapandian, Geological Assistant-
Horticulture.

PW.76 - Siva has deposed that he was carrying Real
Estate Business. He knew Rajagopalan, District Registrar,
North Chennai. Pandiyanesan, a Broker informed him
through letter that there were many lands particularly at
Vallakulam, Veerankulam, Serakulam, Thirunelveli district.
Along with him, he went Vallakulam, Veerankulam,
Serakulam, Kayatharu, Vellankulam Maanur. He came to
know price of the land was Rs.200/- per acre. They
decided that they were to pay Rs.500/- per acres for the
brokers to bring the parties and Rs.1,000/- per acres for
Sitta, Adangal. Rajagopal introduced Sudakaran as NRI
and told that he would purchase the land. Alongwith him,
he went and showed the lands at Vallakulam,
Veerankulam, Serakulam, Veepankulam Kayatharu and
Maanur in a tourist car. He told Rajagopal that per acre
the selling rate is Rs.2,000/-, for broker Rs.500/- and for
him Pandiya Nesan and other expenses Rs.1,000/-. In
total, he should give Rs.3,500/- per acre. They purchased
5.53 acres land for amount of Rs.16,600/- at
Srivaikundam. Janaki Ammal, Sub-Registrar told that the
land has been undervalued and they have to pay double
for the stamping because it is registered in the name of a
firm i.e. River Agro Products Company Limited.

He further deposed that the power of attorney was
registered in his name on 20th and 21st of August, 1994 at
Srivaikundam Sub-Registrar Office. Like this, power of
attorney was registered in his name for 1,167.57 acres of
land. After the power of attorney was registered for
1,167.57 acres of land on different dates for a sum of
Rs.23,35,040/- to the owners of the land. Commission
was given to Pandiya Nesan in a sum of Rs.2.92 Lakhs. He
has received 1.16 Lakhs. Radhakrishnan said that Selvi.
Jayalalitha, Sasikala, Sudhakaran have purchased the
land. On 17.11.1994, he gave sale deed for 281 acres to
power of attorney which was given to him. Deeds of five
documents bearing Nos.694/1994 to 698/1994 were
registered. That on 22.12.1994, 8 sale deeds were
registered through power of attorney. Documents were
811/1994 to 818/1994. Sale Deed was made for 507
acres.
He further deposed that on 6.1.1994, he registered
sale deed for 166 acres of land through his power of
attorney. These documents bearing Nos.9/1995 to
11/1995.
He further deposed that on 21.2.1995, he registered
document Nos.175/1995 to 178/1995 for 158 acres to his
Power of Attorney.
He further deposed that on 22.8.1994 under
Ex.P324, he registered 53 acres of land. That on
17.11.1995, he prepared sale deed for 73.90 acres of land
under Ex.P330. Power of Attorney documents were from
Ex.P331 to Ex.P338.
Different sale deeds were registered on different
dates. They are as follows:
Sale Measurement Amount in Date
Deeds in Acres Rs.
marked as
Exhibits

P.345 60.655 - 17.11.1994

P.350 42.31 - 17.11.1994

P.357 34.815 69,630.00 17.11.1994
P.363 6.98 13,960.00 22.12.1994

P.366 55.05 1,10,010.00 22.12.1994

P.377 57.01 1,14,020.00 22.12.1994

P.388 89.62 1,79,240.00 21.12.1994

P.396 80.955 1,61,910.00 21.12.1994

P.408 71.57 1,51,400.00 21.12.1994

P.419 68.095 1,36,190.00 21.12.1994

P.431 78.095 1,56,190.00 21.12.1994

P.443 48.95 97,900.00 4.1.1995

P.450 54.98 1,09,960.00 4.1.1995

P.456 62.65 97,900.00 4.1.1995

P.467 16.51 33,020.00 17.2.1995

P.472 30.75 67,500.00 17.2.1995

P.477 51.40 1,02,800.00 17.2.1995

P.488 59.82 1,19,640.00 17.2.1995

During investigation, he states that the date on
which the accused No.3 introduced to him by Thiru
Rajagopal. He did transaction totally for 1167 acres of
land from July, 1994 to January 1995. Land price will
differ according to the place. He did not follow the Sub-
Registrar Office guideline. He has given the sale
consideration amount to the owners of the land as
mentioned in the guideline.
During his cross-examination, he states that he has
received Rs.100/- per acre and spent it for his expenses.
He has acquainted with the Sub-Registrar as a broker
normally does. He has submitted his income-tax returns
as his income was very low. Rajagopal knew people like
him because he was a Sub-Registrar. Rajagopal told him
and four brokers that he wanted 500 to 1000 acres of
land. He has spent Rs.1,000/- for the advertisement. He
gave commercial advertisement to 'DINA THANDI'. He
gave advertisement that NRI would like to purchase the
land on the larger scale and ask the agents and brokers at
the places where the land is cheap to approach him. His
native place is Ramapalayam village at Arcot Taluk. He
had noted the village name, soil color, depth of the water
approximate price at Thirunelveli. Pandiya Nesan and he
made a written agreement. In that agreement, he did not
write how land would be purchased, they wrote only the
details of commission. After seeing the advertisement in
Hindu, parties from Chennai contacted their relatives at
Kerala and told details. Approximately, Rs.1,300/- was
spent for Hindu Newspaper advertisement. Radhakrishnan
and third accused came and told that they were ready to
purchase. Along with him, Rajagopal, Radhakrishna,
Pandiya Nesan and accused No.3 went to Serakulam,
Meerankulam, Vellakulam, Vebankulam, Manur and
Kayatharu. When they first met, 5.53 acres of land was
not sold. The 5.53 acres of land mentioned in Ex.P323
was purchased in favour the company. It is registered for
Rs.16,600/-. In Ex.P323, it is mentioned that the sale
amount was received from Agro Products Company.
General Power of Attorney Documents are Exs.P.325 to
P.329. As a power of attorney holder, he had right to sell
to Riverway Agro Products Company and other persons.
He has received the sale amount in respect of Exs.P330,
P339, P345, P350, P357, P363, P366, P377, P388, P396,
P408, P419, P431, P443, P450, P456, P467, P472, P477,
P488. In the month January, 1995, as a power of attorney
holder, he registered a document in the North Chennai
District. They made land dealings for lesser prices. During
investigation, he did not say any broker's name Pandiya
Nesan. Krishnan was an accountant of Riverway Agro
Products Ltd. approached them regarding the lands or sale
at lesser prices at Thuthukudi District. Land owners did
not get any additional amount apart from the sale amount
mentioned in the sale deed documents which has been
done by him. He did not know PW.71 - Radhakrishnan
and Sudhakaran. He has got power of attorney and sale
agreement from different persons at Thuthukudi District.
Riverway Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. did not bear any
expenditure like stamp duty, registration fee except the
sale deed amount, which he did the sale transactions. On
7.9.1999, when he came to the Court as a witness police
officers connected with this case Nallamma Naidu and few
others put pressure on him to tell as they told. During his
chief-examination, they compelled him to tell the names of
the accused whom were not connected with the case
regarding the sale transaction, so he told.

PW.78 - Ganapathy, who speaks about sale of house
property.

PW.79- Rathinaraj, PW.80 - C.Kesavan are the
receptionists of the Hotel.
PW.81 - S.Thirupathi, Manager of the Hotel Blue Star.

PW.82 - Gurdev Singh, Bus body building works-
Rs.25,41,100/-.

PW.83 - Devarajan, Special Director, Ashok Leyland.

PW.84 - Ayyadurai, Indo Doha Chemical Pharmaceutical
Pvt. Ltd. Speaks about the purchase of property for
Rs.1.05 Crores. Sudhakaran issued cheque for
Rs.30,45,000/-.

PW.85 -S.Sridhar, Worker in Ind Bank- purchase of
shares of Indo-Doha Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals sold
to A3; shares 2,50,000 at Rs.10/share.

PW.86- Vadde Ramesh, who speaks aboutthe immovable
property sold to Anjaneya Printers.

PW.87 -M.Subbiah, Superintendent of Engineer, PWD,
Tirunelveli. V Speaks about value of land, building and the
articles of Riverway Agro Products Pvt. Ltd., Serakulam
village- valuation- Rs.7,08,160; 1995-96 PWD price List.
Map Ex.P519.

PW.88- Radha Venkatachalam, PW.89- Peter Greg
Jones, Kodanadu Tea Estate made payment. Amount paid
Rs.7.50 Crores - Ex.P521.

PW.90 -Sheela Balakrishnan, Managing Director- TNIDC
speaks about management transferred to Indo Doha.
Ex.P.534. A3- leasing firm to SPICE. Riverway Agro
Products, Sipcot.

PW.91-R.M.Veerappan, Regional Manager, Canfin Homes
- One Crore fixed deposit on 6.3.1992- Rs.31,05,444/-
Interest. 7.3.1992- Rs.25 Lakhs deposited by A2-
Rs.1,21,809/- -IT. Rs.10,03,191/- - Interest.

PW.92 -Ketan Gandhi, Executive Director of Interface
Capital Market(P) Ltd.

PW.93- James Fredricks, A3-issued cheque for Rs.20
Lakhs, 20 Lakhs, 10 Lakhs- Transfer of shares,
Rs.8,56,636/-. Rs.20 Lakhs from A3.

PW.94-R.Lakshminarayanan, PA to Company Registrar-
Lex Property, Riverway, Signora, Meadow, Ramraj, Super
Duper TV, Indo-Doha. Income Tax Return-Lex Property,
Riverway Agro Products, Signora, Meadow, Indo Doha.

PW.95- S.Balu, Senior Manager, Indian Hospital
Corporation Ltd. Upto March 1996 then gave Rs.3,27,250/-
as Rents.

PW.96 - Raghuram and PW.97- Anilkumar Reddy,
Starting partners of Riverway Agro Products Pvt. Ltd.- firm
was transferred to A3 and A4 Rs.2500/-. Transfer of
Meadow to A4.

PW.98-M.Velayudham.During the year 1996-97, he
worked as an Assistant Executive Engineer in Merina
Division, Chennai. Dheenadayalan, Assistant Executive
Engineer, Shanmugam, Assistant Engineer,
K.Vijayakumar, Assistant Engineer, worked with him. As
per the request of Anti-Corruption Police and as per the
orders of his higher officers, he assessed the buildings on
15th and 16th October 1996. To assess the buildings at L-
66, Annanagar, he took the measurements.
Dheenadayalan, Vijayakumar, Shanmugam, Animal
Husbandry Inspector, Mr.Gothandaraman, Balaji,
Accountant of Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd. assisted him.
A.V.K.Reddy was residing in that building. To assess the
electrical equipments in that Company, Mr.Gandhi,
Assistant Executive Engineer, Mr.Udayasurian, Assistant
Engineer, made assessment and gave report. That report
is Ex.P.641. As per their assessment, the value of the
building is Rs.24,83,756/-. In that civil side is
Rs.22,45,014/-. As the permitted map was not found,
they prepared the map. In this building, ground floor and
first floor were there. The measurement of ground floor is
138.42 sq. meters. (1488.38 sq. ft.) The area of first floor
is 151.42 sq. meters (1628.17 sq. ft.) Hence, the total
extent is 289.84 sq. meters (3116.55 sq. ft.). The
building was constructed as per frame structure. The
building was surrounded by compound wall and one
ornamental gate. Entrance was decorated by broken
marbles. Entire pillars are made of granite stones. The
floor of the building is of marble stone. The steps,
staircase, wall portion of the building is decorated with
Dolpur stones. He has also mentioned the electrical
fittings. The Assistant Engineers, Gandhi, Udayasurian,
have signed the report.
He assessed the building at Door No.5, Murugan
Street, T.Nagar, as per Ex.P.642, which is signed by him.
Their group inspected that building on 23.10.1996. During
their inspection, Inspector Krishna Rao, Tamilnadu
Housing Board Assistant Srinivasan were also with them.
The plan of that building was sanctioned by Corporation
and Metropolitan authorities. When they inspected the
building, underground concrete work has been completed.
In that ground floor, the column pillars were standing at
different levels. The steel required for building were
stored. As per their assessment, the value of the building
was Rs.10,92,828/-. In that the civil work is
Rs.10,62,975/- and electrical work is Rs.15,853/-.

On 24th, 25th and 28th of October 1996, they
inspected the building and took measurements to assess
the buildings at 3/178C, East Seashore Road,
Vettuvankeril. Ex.P.643 is the report. One building had
three floors. Each having 42 flats, one bedroom. Other
two buildings each had two floors, each having two
bedroom flats, ground floor, first floor and second floor.
The other building had ground floor and first floor. In that
one garage to park vehicles, one store room and few
rooms to stay for small employees. Garage construction
was completed and other buildings were not fully
completed. Few wooden things were fixed and the
remaining were stored. As the garage was closed, they
took the measurements from outside and calculated the
area. 305.36 meters compound was erected around the
four buildings. The value of the compound wall, the
incomplete four buildings, the building materials and the
completed construction is Rs.1,47,83,375/-. Electrical
fittings were not included. That was assessed by the
Electrical Engineers. The value is Rs.4,75,701/-. Total
value is Rs.1,58,59,076/-. As the work was done during
the year 1995-96, the assessment was done as per the
year 1995-96. By enquiring the Security and nearby
people, they confirmed the construction was done during
the year 1995-96. He has given a report as per Ex.P.643.

That on 29.10.1996 and 30.10.1996, they took
measurements to assess the building at No.1, Murphy
Street, Akkarai Village, East Seashore Road. The building
was completely constructed. Plan was furnished to him by
Anti-Corruption Department Officers. They considered
that the building was constructed during the year 1994-95.
The building had two floors, ground floor and first floor.
Area of ground floor is 180.59 sq. meters. (1941.82 sq.
ft.) and first floor is 188.68 sq. meters (2028.81 sq. ft.).
Total area is 369.27 sq. meters (3970.64 sq.ft.). The
value of the building is Rs.20,38,959/-. The value of civil
work is Rs.18,93,361/- and electrical work is
Rs.1,45,598/-.

That on 8.12.1996 to 10.12.1996, the above group
went to Hyderabad to take measurements to assess the
buildings in the Grape Garden premises at Jedimetla and
Phapaseerabad, Rangareddy District, Andhra Pradesh. At
that time, PW.256-Kadiveshan-Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Inspector Ebanesan, A.P.K.Rao from Andhra
Pradesh and Assistant Engineer-Vinod Kumar were with
them. After inspection, they gave report as per Ex.P.645.
In that place, a new building along with a compound was
constructed with an area of 986 sq. meters (10602.15 sq.
ft.). Three sheds were constructed in that place for
Securities and old house building. That was renovated
with granite and marbles. Apart from that, a garage for
parking vehicles, workers to stay and generator rooms
were constructed separately. Workers residences were
roofed with asbestos. Manager and Officers' rooms were
also constructed separately. Surrounding the premises,
1112.65 meters of compound wall was also built. The
height of the compound was about 3 meters with
blackstone. Above that 1 to 5 meters were framed with
fence and iron angles. In one corner of the compound
wall, dumping yard was built with the length of 22.6
meters to dump the unwanted things.

New building, renovated old buildings, 3 sheds for
staying the securities and the Garage was measured as
per the price list of 1995-96. Other buildings were
assessed with the price of 1994-95. The year of
construction was decided based on the information
furnished by Ramavijayan and from the details of electrical
connection. The assessment was done as per plinth area.
The total value of the premises is Rs.6,40,33,901/-. In
that the value of the electrical work is Rs.41,53,653/-.
While assessing they took the measurements from
standard data and the rates from scheduled rates. The
works which are not found in the standard rates and
schedule rates were decided by receiving the quotation
and minimum quotation was taken into consideration.

During cross-examination, he states as under:

He has mentioned the age of the renovated building
in Ex.P.645. He has deposed that the age of the
renovated building is 15 years. The campus in which the
building is situated is in a village (Ex.P.645). They took
the Andhra Pradesh schedule rates. For new building, he
took the price of the year 1995-96. This was furnished by
Anti-Corruption Department. They came to know about
the time of construction by Ramavijayan, agent of A-1.
On that basis, it was decided that the construction was
during 1995-96. With their experience, they can say the
time of construction by seeing the building. They enquired
the other people also. To find out about the foundation,
they digged. By observing the colour change of the
mixture, they ascertained the time of construction. During
construction, the colour of the mixture would be cement
colour. Apart from the mixture, they take the date of
electrical connection. They did not get the sanction plan
for the Grape Garden (Ex.P.645). They will get the
electrical connection after many months or year from the
date of construction. The decorative tiles are one foot
length and half foot breadth. 9% is the service charge as
per the Government Order. They cannot say on which
date the construction was completed. The price list will be
for the whole district and not for village. He has not made
enquiries with the people outside the compound wall. In
his assessment, service charge of Rs.2,57,220/- is also
included. He included service charge of Rs.40,32,045/-.
For renovation of old building, he has included service
charge of Rs.4,55,448/-. He included service charge of
Rs.9,860/- for centering. For Car Shed and Shed for
Workers, service charge of Rs.95,080/- is included. For
generator room, service charge of Rs.9,520/- is included.
For Manager's room, service charge of Rs.26,302/- is
included. Water Tank - 27,050/-. Compound Wall-
Rs.2,57,220/-.

In respect of the building at Akkarai Village,
schedule rate of 1994-95 is taken. In Ex.P.644, he
included service charge of Rs.1,56,164/-. He did not give
the standard rates to the Police as it was a secret
document. In Ex.P.644, the construction would have been
completed within 31.3.1995. He decided the age of
building from the date of electrical connection and
enquiries by the nearby people and his experience. As per
Ex.P.643, the electrical work for the building is
Rs.4,75,701/-. He put the value of the construction
material at Rs.17,56,596/-. In that 28.033 cubic feet Teak
sticks are found. For building, he included service charge
of Rs.6,49,186/-. For 24 residential buildings, he has
included service charge of Rs.3,50,274/-. For the parking
place, he has included service charge of Rs.56,130/-. He
assessed 7.5% for inside water supply and 7.5% for
sanitary work. That percentage is as per civil estimate.
In Ex.P.641, he assessed Rs.2,66,078/- for water
supply and sanitary arrangement. He has included service
charge of Rs.2,05,081/-.

They did find as to who is the Proprietor of Door
No.L-66, Annanagar. He went to assess the value of the
building. Owner was not found there. If the owner
constructs the building, expenses of the building will be
decreased approximately by 30%. The Entrance Gate will
not be assessed by taking the weight.

The model plan which he prepared is not enclosed in
Ex.P.643. Notes were also not enclosed. Ex.P.645 reveals
that it has a building of age 15 years. In Hyderabad, they
inspected four buildings. Among them, three buildings
were constructed 15 years back. One building might have
been constructed three months before the date of
inspection. The assessment was not done either by
practical or scientific method. They did not ask the PWD
Engineers of Hyderabad for furnishing Andhra Pradesh
PWD Price List. They did not take out the marble stones
from the construction site to decide the price. Regarding
the marble stone, they have not taken any writing from
the marble merchants. They have not seen the thickness
of the marble. They have not asked the expenses of doors
from anybody.
PW-98 was recalled and re-examined by the learned
Special Public Prosecutor and questions were posed as
under:
In chief-examination, he has stated that the building
covered by Ex.P.641 was constructed during 1994-95. In
cross-examination, he has stated that building was
constructed 5 to 6 years back. Among the two versions,
which version is correct?
What he has stated in examination-in-chief is correct.
In chief-examination building covered by Ex.P.643
construction work was done during 1995-96. But in the
cross-examination, construction work would have been
commenced three months earlier to 28.10.1996. Among
two versions, which version is correct?
What he has stated in Examination-in-chief is correct.
Referring to Ex.P.644, the witness has stated that the
building constructed during 1994-95. But in the cross-
examination, he has deposed that the construction would
have been commenced three months prior to date of
inspection. Among two versions, which version is correct?
What he has stated in Examination-in-chief is correct.
Referring to Ex.P.645, he has deposed that building
was built in the year 1995-96 and 1994-95. But in the
cross-examination, he has deposed that three buildings
were constructed 15 years back. One building is new. The
building might have construction before three months.
Among these two versions, which version is correct?
What he has stated in examination-in-chief is
correct.

PW.100 -Prabashkumar Reddy, Lex Property-sale of 2
apartments Rs.30,00,580/-.Tenant- Indo Masuchetti
Appliances Company Ltd. At the time of sale Lex property-
Rs.15,000/- pm.
PW.101 - Sheela Toni is a Tenant and paid advance of
Rs.30,000/-. Rs.1,92,450 from July 1992 to April 1996.

PW.102 - Raghavan, Manager (Admn.) South India
Corporation Agencies speaks about Ex.P655 - Rent
agreement of Jaya Publications. The total rent paid is
Rs.43,75,132/- from January, 1993 to April, 1996.

PW.103 -Srinivasan, Senior Manager-BBN Generating
Company speaks about the rent paid from 1-7-95 to April
1996 of Rs.8,87,850/- and for the year 1995-96
Rs.3,47,850/- is paid.

PW.104 - Shanmugham. Vehicle on hire Swaraz Mazda
hire charges Rs.25,000/- - A4, Rs.9,18,910/- - A4,
Rs.35,000/- - A3, Rs.12,86,474/- - A4 from March, 1993
to March, 1996.

PW.105 - Balachandran, Company Secretary- Indo-
Machcheeta Appliances Company Ltd. Rental Agreement
on 04.05.1994, Monthly Rent Rs.7,500/- Lex Property-
Rs.3,45,000/-.

PW.106 -Krishna Kumar Reddy sold Meadow Agro Farm.

PW.107 - Sornam, Superintendent of Engineer, PWD.
There is no standard rate for decorated tiles in the price
list. There are two methods to find buildings value. The
detailed estimate and per square foot method are the two
ways.
PW.108 - Mohanlal. A1 donated Rs.5 Lakhs to construct
Silver Jubilee stage in Madurai Kamaraj University.

PW.109 - M.S.Venkataraman, who speaks about Rs.1
lakh Donation given to Music Academy.

PW.110 - K.Santhanam, whospeaks about granting
compensation of Rs.14 Lakhs out of which Rs.1,00,008/-
contributed by A1 from her personal fund.

PW.111 -K.N.Achuthan, who speaks about payment made
through cheque for Rs.21,000/- to Sweet Meat Stall.

PW.112 - R.Venkatarama Upadyaya, who speaks about
cheque issued.

PW.113 - Moshin Bijapuri, who took shop for rent from
Sasi Enterprises.

PW.114 - P.V.Ravikumar, Manager-Subbarama Reddy
Group of Construction.

PW.115- K.Mariappan, who speaks about machineries
valuation-Anjaneya Printers- Ex.P665.

PW.116-A.Jayapaul was working as an Executive
Engineer, Building Division-4, PWD, in the year 1996. His
Team evaluated six buildings. The ground floor of Building
No.21, Padmanabha Street, T.Nagar, had an area of
165.61 sq. meters. First floor had an area of 158.49 sq.
meters. Second Floor had area of 12.49 sq. meters.
Another Room plus toilet had area of 8.63 sq. meters.
Building Plan was not provided to them. Price ratio was
fixed by PWD. Face of the building was fitted with ruby
red granites. Sloped roof of the front portion was fitted
with ornamental tiles. Flooring was done with polished
high quality marble stones. Exquisite woodenstructure at
the entrance was made up of Teakwood. The other doors
were made of plywood made from the Teakwood. Fittings
of the door were of bronze. Bathroom fitted with glazed
tiles. Interior and exterior building was painted with high
quality paint. Compound wall was fitted with Dolpur
stones. A sump was digged for storing corporation water.
Grill was of a good workmanship. Footpath around the
house was laid with broken marbles. 9% service charge
was included for making the plan of the house and for
supervising it. Electrical fittings worth 20.43 lakh was
fitted. Ex.P.666 is the valuation report.

His team inspected a house at Nos.149, 150,
Sriramnagar, T.T.K.Road, Chennai. It was an unfinished
building. Basement area is 390.67 sq. meters. Ground
floor is 486.79 sq. meters. First floor is 266.17 sq.
meters. Plan was sanctioned in 1995. Construction was
stopped about six months prior to inspection. 1995-96
rate was fixed for valuation. Total value of the building is
29.59 lakh.

His team took measurement for the purpose of
valuation of four buildings located at Nos.1/240, New
Mahabalipuram Road, Enjambakkam. Construction had
taken place during 1995-96. Rate fixation was done as
per the year 1995-96. Marble slabs meant for flooring was
kept in campus. Door frames and window frames were
kept. They included them for valuation. Overhead Tank
was built. There was a well. Depth of the well was 5.75
meters. Pipelines were not fixed. The value of the four
buildings was assessed at Rs.53.11 lakh. Ex.P.668 is the
valuation report of four buildings.

His Team inspected two buildings located at 2/1, B-
3, Seashell Avenue, Sholinganallur village. The basement
area of the first building is 310.73 sq. meters. First floor
area 279.79 sq. meters. Second floor area 12.4 sq.
meters. Total area 602.92 sq. meters.

Second Building: Basement area - 376.72 sq.
meters. First floor area - 319.68 sq. meters. Second floor
area - 9.31 sq. meters. Total area - 705.71 sq. meters.
Except painting, entire construction was over for two
buildings. Building was of modern design. Doors,
windows and almirahs were made of high-quality
Teakwood. Sloping roofs were adorned with ornamental
tiles. Flooring was done with expensive marbles.
Bathroom fitted with high-quality ornamental glazed tiles.
There were two swimming pools. Pathway was laid with
broken marbles mosaic chips. Building was evaluated as
per 1995-96 rate fixation list. Ex.P.669 is the valuation
report and the value is Rs.80.37 lakh.

The team inspected the building at No.19,
Pattammal Street, Mylapore, Chennai. They considered
only renovation work for valuation. Building basement
area - 42.06 sq. meters. First floor area - 42.27 sq.
meters. Second floor area 23.42 sq. meters. Flooring
was laid with quality marbles. Bathrooms and toilets fitted
with porcelain tiles. Elevation slope roofing fitted with
ornamental tiles. Front compound wall was built with
unpolished granite. Garage flooring was laid with ruby red
granite. Rate fixation of PWD applicable to 1993-94 was
considered for valuation. Overhead tank was constructed.
Electrical connections were redone. Ex.P.670 is the
valuation report. Renovation cost was Rs.8 lakh.

Door No.36, Poes Garden, Chennai: The team
inspected the campus. The campus had main building,
newly built five storeyed building, one two-storeyed
building, security quarters inside a very high compound
wall. Main building was renovated completely. Newly built
area of the main building was 72.27 sq. meters (777.09
sq.ft.). Newly built area on the first floor was 49.12 sq.
meters (528.17 sq. ft.). Highest degree of marbles,
granite stone slabs, sanitary and bathroom fittings were
used. Entrance of the dining hall had very expensive
sculpture carved structures. Almirahs, sofasets, tabletops
were of high-quality materials. Building was raised on
concrete pillars. There was cinema theatre attached to
third and fourth floors. There was Conference Hall.
Tables, chairs and sofas found there were of extraordinary
craftsmanship. Campus had two generators of 125 K.V.A.
and 62.5 K.V.A. A total of 39 air-conditioners, mini-cinema
theaters, chandeliers were fixed at many places.
Television set, disc antenna and other equipments were
considered for evaluation. The materials used for electrical
connection inside and outside were evaluated at Rs.105.25
lakh. Ex.P.671 is the valuation report and the valuation is
Rs.7,24,98,000/- (Rupees Seven Crore Twenty Four
Lakh and Ninety Eight Thousand only). Ex.P.672 contains
building plans.

During cross-examination, he has deposed that there
is a schedule rates for basic items or labour, materials,
bricks, tiles, broken blackstones, ironworks, wage
structure for certain works, transport charges for carrying
materials, corporated related items, details regarding the
materials relating to Highways Departments. Cost of the
electrical goods was fixed at Rs.1,70,000/-. Cost of
electrical items was checked with shops through
telephone. He has not mentioned in his report. He does
not know where the Electrical Engineers checked the prices
of these items. There is no starting rate for the ruby
redstones fixed at the Entrance, nor is there for the
ornamental tiles. He states ruby red black stones were
checked at RedSun and Gem Granite Company. He does
not remember the dates. He does not know with whom he
checked the price with. He fixed Rs.15,884/- for the ruby
black granites, Rs.23,880/- for ornamental tiles and
Rs.2,83,452/- for Entrance Door. Valuation of the door
frames is Rs.59,210/-. There is no schedule rate for the
ornamental door. He has not taken down the rates quoted
by Arya Bhangy Company of ornamental doors. There is
no schedule rate for brass bolts. He checked with Sabari
Hardwares. He has taken down the rates they have
quoted. He does not remember the date of enquiry.
There is no schedule rate for high-quality porcelain tiles.
Value of brass bolts is Rs.24,890/-. Value of porcelain
tiles is Rs.48,427/-. There is no schedule rate for paints
used inside and outside the building. The names of
hardware shops cannot be specified. There is no schedule
rates for Dolpur stones. There is no schedule rates for
skilled labour. There is no schedule rate for grill gates.
He valued the grill gates at Rs.20,102/-. There is no
standard rate for landscaped lawn. He does not remember
with whom he checked the rates for calculating the value
of lawns. It was done orally. He has taken down. He
does not have the paper. He tore it after mentioning the
rates in the valuation report. Value fixed at Rs.20.43 lakh
includes lawn. Rs.16,800/- was fixed for footpath with
broken marbles. Service charge was fixed at Rs.1,68,675/-
. Centering was not removed at certain places. Materials
used for centering were damaged. Steel rods in the
columns were rusted. Based on this, he concluded that
the work was stopped about six months back. Pine logs
used there looked older than six months. Work was
stopped around April 1996. 5% margin can be given.
They considered the schedule rates applicable to 1995-96.
There is no item in the building which does not come
under the schedule rates. Doors, windows were not fixed.
Electrical goods were valued at Rs.16,414/-.

Ex.P.668 was the valuation report for the building at
1/240, Enjambakkam. Value of marble slabs were of
Rs.15,38,287/-. He fixed the rate on the basis of enquiry.
There is a schedule rate for Teakwood. Windowpanes and
frames made for first building at Rs.41,142/-, second
building Rs.41,350/-, third building Rs.58,977/-, fourth
building Rs.30,036/-. The value of well was Rs.18,640/-.
Service charge of 7.5% was levied. For pumphouse,
service charge of Rs.2,415/- was levied. The value of 7
direct items found in Ex.P.669 are not found in the
schedule rates. There are different grades of Teakwood.
The rates differ. They checked with the Carpenters. For
first building, the value of marble slabs was fixed at
Rs.7,72,366/-. Value of ornamental curved tiles was fixed
at Rs.47,903/-.

The value of the porcelain tiles fixed at the first
building was Rs.79,306/- and for the Second building
Rs.1,09,179/-. The value of two Swimming Pools was
fixed at Rs.1,56,766/-.

An amount of Rs.29,790/- was fixed the first and
Rs.26,793/- is fixed for the second. The rates of porcelain
tiles were checked at Southern Sanitary Stores and noted
down on a paper and torn the same after preparing the
report. He cannot specify with whom he checked the
rates. He has fixed Rs.12,020/- for the footpath around
the first building and Rs.29,248/- for the footpath around
the second building as value. With their experience, they
fixed the value of small items like mosaic chips. Two
buildings did not have air-conditioners or fans. There were
almirahs and furniture in both the buildings. He has fixed
the value at Rs.77,446/- for the first building and
Rs.1,20,671/- for the second building. There is no
separate schedule rates for tables and chairs. For special
items, he checked outside about the making charges. He
has fixed the value at Rs.97,640/- for the marbles used for
the flooring. Rs.38,104/- for porcelain tiles fixed in the
bathroom, Rs.13,892/- for ornamental tiles mentioned in
Ex.P.670. These values were fixed after checking the
rates in the market. Rs.11,640/- is the value of the
unpolished blackstones used for compound wall of the
front side. Rs.11,600/- is the cost for ruby red stones laid
at car parking area. Rs.69,750/- is the service charges.
Rs.39,440/- was the amount fixed for painting. There was
no schedule rates for non-skid tiles, white cement,
synthetic enamel paint, chandelier fittings. Rs.88,000/-
was fixed for electrical goods. A few portions in the main
building in the campus were newly constructed. Old
buildings were renovated. Rs.42,37,606/- was fixed for
newly built area in the old buildings. Most of the
sanitarywares were of Hindustan Sanitaryware. Other
fittings and pipes were of Jaguar Company.
Rs.14,63,250/- is the expenditure incurred for carving
down on the doors. Valuation is only for the doors fixed in
the renovated parts of the main building. He checked the
rates from Arya Bhangi who made door with carvings. He
took the photographs. There is no evidence to show that
the photographs are that of Poes Garden. The total
outside area of the building is called its plinth area. The
Chief Engineer has given the rates for the cost of 1 sq.
meter every year. He followed the rates fixed for 1993-
94. He followed the rates of 1992-93 for the two-storeyed
building. He has fixed Rs.42,63,000/- for two-storeyed
building meant for vehicle parking. Rs.10,56,000/- for
security quarters. Rs.6,95,000/- for compound walls.
According to the building plan, the building would have
been built in 1968. Building plan was sanctioned on
29.11.1968. The value of five-storeyed building is
Rs.2,33,50,000/-. He noted down the rates they have
quoted. Later on, he tore the same. He has fixed the
value of furniture at Rs.58,59,157/-. Rs.6,77,072/- is the
value fixed for artificial fountain. He asked
Muruganandam, Horticultural Expert, who was working as
a Contractor in Public Works Department. He noted the
rates quoted and he tored the notes preparing after
preparing the report. Otis lift is valued at Rs.7,70,000/-.
He does not know the year of manufacture of that lift. He
checked up the rates with Spencers. He noted down the
rates and torn the papers. Value of iron gate is
Rs.1,63,750/-. Value of electrical connection inside and
outside is Rs.1,05,25,000/-. Value of 39 air-conditioners
and 9 split air-conditioners is Rs.19,22,865/-
(Rs.10,13,430/- + Rs.9,09,435/-). 235 mm projectors is
Rs.7,51,732/-. He has fixed Rs.2,98,900/- for the sound
system, light effect. There were 7 television sets in old
building and 3 television sets in new building.
Rs.1,96,000/- is the value of televisions. Value of dish
antenna was Rs.1,83,527/-.

He prepared building plan. Building plan was not
enclosed with Ex.P.666. Schedule rates of the Department
was not attached to Ex.P.666. He has not made any test
to know the quality of marbles and granites. In Ex.P.666,
it is not mentioned that enquiry was made with the Forest
Department for assessing the value of wooden structure.
Ex.P.666 does not mention the number of bathrooms,
length, breadth and height where the porcelain tiles were
fixed, measurement of the area painted, length, breadth
and height of Dolpur tiles fixed on the compound wall,
length, breadth, height and weight of gate. He has not
consulted the Horticulture Expert to fix the value of lawns.
The value of lawns was fixed on assumption. Rs.3,347/- is
fixed for sq. meters as the value of marble stones. They
have not attached the source of price of valuation of
wardrobes. Building owner or his representative was not
present at the time of evaluation of Ex.P.667. They have
not enclosed the details of length, breadth, height of
building, area of ground floor and first floor in Ex.P.667.
They have not seen the sanction plan of the building. The
model building plan prepared by them for the
measurements was not attached to Ex.P.667. Ex.P.667
does not mention the length, height, weight of the
brickwall. Quality of the brickwall is also not mentioned.
The report does not mention the length, breadth and height
of the concrete structures. Valuation was prepared
according to the schedule rates of their Department.
Length and breadth of the iron beam is not mentioned in
the report. The sq. meter rate is fixed according to the
schedule rate of their Department. The iron rods weighed
about 500 quintals. The value for the piled up marble slabs
was done after taking measurements and counting them
separately. They have not seen the sanctioned plan. They
have not enclosed the building plan along with Ex.P.668.
They have not enclosed the schedule rate of their
Department along with Exs.P.666 and 672. They did not
seek the opinion of the Forest Department Officials to
ascertain the nature and quality of wood. Measurements
of frame structure, load bearing structures were not
mentioned in Ex.P.668. Construction materials used for
building No.1 were not classified before valuation. The
weight and rate of the crystal rods were fixed according to
their own calculation. Ex.P.669 does not mention the
structure of the ornamental tiles. They have estimated by
them to the expensive marble slabs just by looking at
them. They have not separately mentioned the
measurements of the places where marble slabs are used.
Porcelain fittings used for bathrooms were assessed on
assumption. Broken piece marble cannot be valued.
Construction materials and fixed ratios are evaluated
according to the rates followed in their Department. Rates
were also fixed according to their calculation. Pipes used
for drinking water and sewage water and their value is
fixed according to their Department rates. The report does
not mention separately where the marble structures are
found. The length, height and weight of the grill gates are
not separately given in the report. The report does not say
the kind of decorative work found on the compound wall.
The length and breadth of security room is not given in the
report. Though they have prepared a note before
inspecting all the buildings and handed over to the Police
officers, none of them is produced before the Court. All the
four groups took minutes separately, but none of them
were included in Ex.P.671. Owner of the building was not
present when Ex.P.671 was drawn. The schedule rate of
their Department was not enclosed along with Ex.P.671.
Some of the old structures were in tact. Details about
renovation of old building is not given in Ex.P.667. The
maps enclosed along with Ex.P.671 are all copies. The plan
does not show the name of the person who prepared it.
None of the building plans are attached to Ex.P.672. They
have not consulted the specialist in the field of brass
materials while valuing them. Value of the materials found
in the structures of five-storeyed building was fixed based
on the schedule rates of their Department on enquiries
made outside. Their inspection was based on outside
observation and not based on any specific test or proof.
Value of the iron used for all the items of structures was
fixed based on the schedule rates.
PW.116 was recalled. Questions were put as under:
In your examination-in-Chief you have given the year
of construction of various buildings covered under
Exs.P.666 to P.672, but in the cross-examination you have
given the contradictory statement giving the year of
construction outside the check period. Which one of the
version is correct?
The first version, i.e. what he has stated in the
examination-in-chief is correct.
During cross-examination, he states among Ex.P.666
to P.672, he does not remember which report belongs to
which building.

PW.117- R.Govindan, PW.118 - S.R.Kapoor, PW.119 -
C.S.Raju, PW.120- I.Nazurullah, whospeak about
machineries valuation-Anjaneya Printers- Ex.P665.

PW.121- R.Kannan, PW.122- R.Sundararaj, PW.123-
R.Srinivasa Moorthy are the Officers of the Commissioner
of Tax Department.

PW.124 - Ethindra Babu, Special Officer, Finance; he
speaks about salary of Rs.1 per month taken by A1.

PW.125 - Vasudevan, Assessing Officer.

PW.126 - Krishnamoorthy, Assistant Commissioner-
Mahazar witness.

PW.127 -A.Rajeshwari, who speaks about Ex.P717-sale
deed.

PW.128 -Balakrishnan, Assistant Secretary speaks about
TNHB allotted plot to A3.

PW.129 - Namaji, who speaks about sales and repairs of
watches Kani and Sons.

PW.130 - Maran, who speaks about assessment of
watches.
PW.131 - Jerald Wilson, Quality Controller, Tamil Nadu
Leather Development Corporation, who speaks about
valuation of slippers and shoes.

PW.132 - Fortune Eban Leelavathy, District Registrar,
Central Chennai District Registration Office. He speaks
about Registration of Purachi Thalivar Doctor MGR Trust-
A1, Vigneswara Builders, M/s. Les Property Development
Private Ltd., Lakshmi Constructions, Gopal Promoters,
Sakthi Constructions, Namashivaya Housing Development
Company, Iyappa Property Development Company, Sea
Enclave Navashakti Contractors and Builders, Oceanic
Constructions, Green Garden Apartments-A2 to A4.

PW.133 - R.Chengalvarayan, Manager, (Power loan silk
division) Co-optex Regional Office. He speaks about quality
and price of silk sarees. He deposed that there were 914
silk sarees, chudidhars, nighties altogether 6195 sets. Age
of the sarees has not mentioned.

PW.134- Rajendran, Audio Visual Recorder, Crime
Division, Chennai-2.

PW.135 -Parthasarathy, Camera Man.

PW.136 -M.Krishnamoorthy, Joint Sub-Registrar. He
speaks about Exs.P648, 649 and 650.

PW.137 - Tajudeen, who speaks about Ex.P769-sale deed
in respect of Sasi Enterprises. He also speaks about selling
of land in Shop No.80 as per Ex.P770. Ex.P646 is the sale
deed.

PW.138- S.Rajagopal, who speaks about Ex.P646 sale
deed.

PW.139 - S.K.Venkat Rao, Seller. A4-Ilavarasi purchased
the property as guardian for Master Vivek, Minor as per
Ex.P771.

PW.140 - Sivasankar, Seller, who sold the property as
per Ex.P.772. Purchaser-Ramraj Agro Mills Ltd.

PW.141 -M.Swaminathan, Seller, sold wet land in
Ciruthavur to Sudhakaran-A3.

PW.142 - Kannamani, who speaks about Tamil Nadu
Small Scale Industry Development Corporation. Ex.P773.

PW.143 -V.E.Geethalakshmi, Upgraded Deputy Secretary.

PW.144 - Veerabahu, Special Chief Engineer(PWD). He
deposed that the building constructed during 1992-93. The
assessment value found in Ex.P.782 will not be suitable for
the constructions made since 1990

PW.145 - Chittibabu, who speaks about the curtains
putting in front of the screen in theatre.

PW.146 - Kishore, Chief Engineer, Recording Section. He
speaks about the installation of the projection equipments
and the sound system in the theatre constructed.
PW.147 - Madanlal, Seller, Garden Sarees.

PW.148 -Mohan. He made seat covers.

PW.149 - M. Thiagarajan, Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board. He speaks about supply of electricity.

PW.150 - Chandran, Manager of Tamil Nadu Small Scale
Industries Development Corporation. He speaks that he did
not allot the 3 storeyed building.

PW.151 - Manzoor Ahamod, Manager of Tamil Nadu Small
Scale Industries Development Corporation. He speaks
about cancellation of allotment of four granted land.

PW.152 - Selvaraj, who speaks about that A1 took
permission for MLA office, subsequently, vacated.

PW.153 - V.Baskaran has deposed that he was working
as Superintendent Engineer in Tamil Nadu Public Works
Department, construction Division (Taluk-I) and retired on
30.6.1999. From 1993 to 1997, he worked as Executive
Engineer in P.W.D. Construction Division at Tanjoovur.
Since he worked in Public Works Department for about 35
years, he had good experience about buildings,
expenditure on buildings and assessment of buildings.

An order was issued by P.W.D Chief Engineer on
20.11.96 to assess buildings in the premises of Ramraj
Rice Mill in Vandal Playa, Nannilam Taluk, A.T. Panneer
Selvam District. Kaliyappan, Assistant Executive Engineer,
Karunakaran, Assistant Engineer, Manian, Junior Engineer
and Rajaraman, Electrical Engineer were appointed to
assist him. From 27.11.96 to 29.11.96, they inspected all
the buildings and took measurements. Then, they
prepared the assessment. On the basis of the respective
year of construction and the schedule rate of PWD, they
prepared the assessment for
1) A.C.C godown built in 1991-1992.
2) Workers Quarters constructing of ground floor - 5
houses and 1st floor - 5 houses built in 1994-95.
3) 2nd workers quarters consisting of 10 houses in
ground floor and 10 houses in I floor and a
guesthouse on the first floor and the platforms.
Besides, they prepared the assessment for the
compound wall build in 8 houses for the workers and
a residential bungalow for the Managing Directors.

For all the buildings, they submitted separate civil
assessment and the electrical assessment. The Assistant
Engineer Electrical prepared the assessment for electrical
work and was duly verified by him and submitted.
Ex.P.822 is the assessment report submitted by him. The
total value for all the buildings for Civil Work - Rs.139.56
lakhs.
For Electrical Work - Rs.10.734 lakhs
Total of Rs.150.294 lakhs. He has assessed for the
buildings constructed during 1991-92, for the civil work
Rs.9.6 lakhs.
For Electrical Work - Rs.0.086 lakhs
And a total of - Rs.9.686 lakhs
For the buildings constructed during 1994-95, for
Civil Work was Rs.51.48 lakhs
For Electrical Work Rs. 5.718 lakhs
Total Rs.57.198 lakhs
For the buildings constructed during 1995-96
For Civil Work Rs.78.48 lakhs
For electrical work Rs. 4.93 lakhs
Total Rs.83.41 lakhs
He has sent his reports and the documents to the
Anti Corruption officers personally.

During the cross-examination of A1 and A2, their Chief
Engineer issued a written order to inspect and assess the
above mentioned buildings, Kaliappan, the Assistant
Executive Engineer, Karunakaran, the Assistant Engineer,
Manian the Junior Engineer and an electrical Engineer,he
does not remember their names who assisted him. They
did the digging work and the other works. They were from
the mill they had not given any requisition letter asking for
assistance. The copy of the Chief Engineer's order was
given to each one in the group. The above mill was at the
distance of approximately 70 k.m from Tanjoor. They
commuted daily and returned at night. They did know
personally to whom that mill belongs to before inspection.
He has seen that mill while passing through that way. The
above mentioned mill is in the outskirts of Vandampalayam
village. He has not written the survey number of the
village and where the mill is situated in his report. He has
not mentioned in his report, whom they contacted to
assess and whose permission was sought to inspect the
building. On the first day a Police Inspector came with
them, court order was not issued to them to inspect the
place, nor any of the group members applied to get the
court order. During the 3 days of inspection, no untoward
incidents occurred. When asked for the plan, they told
them that they did not have the plan and the plan had not
been approved. He asked for the plan orally and they also
replied orally. It was not done in writing. They have not
prepared the notes of proceedings for that. He does not
know that which Panchayat Union that building comes
under. He did not find out in writing about the plan
approval of the building either from the village officer or
Panchayat Union. They have not done any test in the
laboratory. They did only a Physical test. They informed
them that they could appoint engineers in writing on behalf
of them, they did not inform them in writing.
Mr.Kaliyappan, Mr.Karunakaran and Mr.Manian are Civil
Engineers. They have not brought any metallurgy
engineers with them. The electrical engineer belonged to
our Public Works Department only. He did not work under
his personal supervision. In those buildings, workers
quarters (30 residences - in 2 buildings) godown, a guest
house in the 1st floor and the compound wall were
completely done. In the bungalow for the Managing
Director, 2 twin houses and a house of quarters, electrical
fittings were not fixed and the final coat of the painting
was also not done. As the above mentioned details were
not needed to be mentioned, he did not mention about
them in his report. Their reports were written in 2
different (ink pens). The Assistant Engineer Karunakaran
wrote that report. In the report, it was written as for the
subsequent year and it was struck and corrected as
"Respective" in different ink.

Electrical work is also added afterwards in different
ink. On 3.2.97 he has signed in their report. The building
are inspected is a modern Rice Mill. He had worked for 5
years in Tanjoor. When he was working as an Executive
Engineer in Tanjoor, Vandam palayam was under his
jurisdiction. He went from palani joined duty in Tanjoor in
1998. He did not find out for how many years the above
mentioned will was functioning. He had not inspected the
license for the above mentioned rice mill. He heard that
the above modern rice mill had been there since 1985, as
an ordinary mill. He came to know when the building was
constructed from local people and from his experience, and
mentioned in the report. Moreover, he came to know
about it from one of the residents from the quarters. He
has not found out and written his name. He did not
enquire whether the buildings were constructed by the
owners or by the contractors. He did not prepare the
electrical estimation. During inspection, they went on
noting down details then and there. The Assistant
Engineer Mr.Karuakaran prepared the plan (sketch) and
notes under his supervision. He does not remember that
how many pages of notes were written. It was written in
about 6 or 7 sheets. The notes were written on both the
pages of the papers. The papers got over.
They have not given the notes taken during the
inspection to the police. The notes were not enclosed with
Ex.P.822. He valued on the basis of Public Work
Department's rate. This rate differs from one district to
another. They have fixed separate PWD rate for each and
every district. For each district the PWD fixes rates for
about 40 items. Bricks, black stones (granites) and Jally
are under these 40 items. Cement and Steel do not come
in that list. The rate for cement and steel will be fixed by
the Superintendent Engineer. From his experience, he
knew the rate of 40 items fluctuate. Every year, the PWD
fixes the rates.

Every financial year, i.e. every March the rates are
fixed and the PWD will issue order to implement it from
April of that year. The fixed rate will be followed up to
March next year. Every year the rates will be published in
writing by the Superintendent Engineer. The published
reports, regarding the rate fixed by the Superintendent
Engineer was not enclosed with Ex.P.822. The fluctuation
in the open market for these 40 items will not affect this
report. If once the rate is fixed, this should be followed for
the whole year. The wages given to petty labourers,
Mason and the other workers will differ from place to place
for male and female. He did not see the property tax
receipt to find out the owner of the building. In Ex.P.822,
in page 17 they have mentioned about the places, from
where sand, jally and brick can be obtained. The quarries
for jally and sand are recognized by the Revenue
Department. He told him that on this basis only the above
mentioned things will be obtained. In page No.17, the
places mentioned as 'Source' are recognized by the
Revenue Department. He had assumed that the things
mentioned would have been purchased in the places found
in Ex.P.822, page no.17, he did not enquire to find from
where the buildings materials, were purchased because
they did not need that information. He has fixed the rates
as per the PWD rates. They have not shown their
assessment to anybody there to find their views. They
have not enquired whether the buildings were constructed
by the owners or contractors.

The builders can procure bricks from their own brick
klin. Otherwise they can purchase the bricks, sand and
jally from the places of their choice. He does not know
personally that from where they purchased sand, jally,
cement and steel for this building. He does not knowthat
whether their own vehicles were used to transport the
building materials. He does not know that who is the
license holder for this modern rice mill. He does not know
that who is paying the property tax and where it is paid?
The PWD rates are, the price list prepared to collect tender
for Government buildings. The contractors include the
profit in the tender. The price list published by the
Superintendent Engineers is not for our convenience. They
will publish the price list only after finding out the rates
from the statistical departments, and from the completed
buildings for the existing year whether the value is more or
less. With these informations and the consultation with
related engineers only, the price list will be published. The
contractors also can represent their association. But they
do not join. If they joined, they sent in writing their views
regarding the fixation of price. They went there for 3 days
to collect the basic information to assess these buildings.
Ex.P.822 does not have the details, on which date, which
building was inspected. On which date, which building was
inspected is also not mentioned in Ex.P.822. He was an
Executive Engineer, his higher officer is Superintendent
Engineer. In those times, if the construction was done for
more than 5 lakhs, the Superintendent Engineer would
supervise personally. The assessment report, prepared for
the buildings values more than 5 lakhs will be sent to the
Superintendent Engineer for approval. The superintendent
Engineer did not inspected Ex.P.822 report. It is not
necessary also. The assessment report Ex.P.822 is not
sent to the Superintendent Engineer. He submitted this
personally to the Prevention of Corruption and Anti
Corruption police. He gave the report Ex.P.822 to the
Assistant Superintendent, Tanjoor, Ex.P.822 was not sent
to the Chief Engineer. But he was informed that it has
been sent to the police. The Chief Engineer only ordered
them to prepare the assessment. He has not tested the
sand, chemical test was not done with sample taken by
digging and scrabbling the walls. The items which were
not in these 40 items in PWD rates are also found in these
buildings. The rates of the items which are not under the
40 items will be fixed separately by the Superintendent
Engineer and gave him more list. As per that only he
assessed. Depending on the structure of the building and
the nature of the usage, sand, cement and jally mixture
and the ratio of the mixture will differ. In Ex.P.822, he has
given the ratio of the mixture only on assumption. He has
mentioned the ratio of mixture, as followed in practice.
The ratio of mixture for wall, and floor are given from his
experience and observation. He does not know that how
many people are manufacturing bricks in Thiruvaroor. He
does not know that how many people are Manufacturing
jally in Thuvakudy. He does not know that the license
holders are quarry sand in Koriyar.

He did not enquire in the above mentioned places
about who has supplied the building materials. He does
not know that from whom and where the basic things were
purchased to construct these buildings. As the water
supply and sewerage were concealed, he considered those
rates as per PWD norms. These rates could be either more
or less. The details of the sanitary fittings and the names
of the companies were not mentioned in Ex.P.822. During
his lifetime service, he was in construction of Government
buildings and assessment works. Most of the times, he
worked in the construction division. He does not have any
rights in assess private buildings. In his service, he did
not have any chance of assessing private buildings.
During his Government service, he has not involved in
making plans for private buildings.

The Assistant Engineer-Karunakaran and the Junior
Engineer-Manian prepared the original and their assistants
might have prepared the fair copies. That is only found in
Ex.P.822. He does not know that who has written the
Ex.P.822 in the court. In Ex.P.822 there is no signature
found in the papers from 11 to 15, Likewise in page 17,
Pages from 19 to 41, Pages 43 to 45, Pages 47 to 60,
Pages 63 to 74, Pages 77 to 84, Page 87, Pages 89 to 91,
Page 93, Pages 95 to 121, Pages 123 to 129, Page 131,
Pages 133 to 145, Pages 147 to 161, Pages 163 to 180,
Pages 183 to 185, Page 187, Pages 189 to 216, Pages 219
to 223.

In Ex.P.822, he has estimated a total of Rs.10 lakhs
for water supply and sanitary ware. For this, he has
calculated 7.59 of the total value. The length and width of
the tapes were not given because the taps were fixed in
the wall. They have not measured the length and breadth
of tapes which were visible. The number of sanitary ware
was also not mentioned. Ex.P.822 in page 207, he has
calculated Rs.2 for each screw and fixed Rs.8/- for 4
screws. For 4 wood plugs fixed in the wall, he has
estimated Rs.8/-. That is made of teak wood. He has put
Rs.250/- for a mirror of 1 ½ feet height and 2 feet length.
This is the price in the year 1994. He has put Rs.150/- for
towel rod. In Ex.P.822, the tabular form 2 to 8 in page
274 is written in pen and the others in carbon. The rate of
electrical fittings were also fixed at the rate of the PWD.
The wires having different gauge measurements were
used. He has considered the PWD rate for each wire.
Except out 4 engineers they have not taken any other
persons for inspection. The guest house which he has
mentioned in the 1st examination is the guest room in the
1st floor. When he was working there, he has seen the
buildings constructed during 1995-96. When he went that
side. Ex.P.822 he has mentioned the year of constructing
that building. While construction, he has not gone and
seen them personally. With local enquiry and his
experience he has mentioned the age of the buildings in
Ex.P.822. The local enquiry was not taken in writing by
the concerned persons. He does not know that the hours
of the enquired persons, fathers name, age and address.
He has not taken anything in writing from the village
officers.

Like that, he has not taken anything in writing from
either the P.D.O. Officer or Panchayat Board President.
Ex.P.822 did not have the details about who has seen
which building, took measurement for assessment. The
letter came from the Chief Engineer is X-20 (This letter
was taken from the file brought by the accused and
notified as X-20)

As per X-20, 2 groups were formed to assess. The
other group did not inspect the buildings inspected by
them. They inspected the other buildings. The letter X-20
did not have the details which group should inspect which
buildings. It is mentioned that if any delay in this will be
viewed seriously. On 23.11.96, he received the letter X-
20. 4 or 5 days after receiving the letter, they started the
inspection. If the letter X-20 would not have come, he
would not have done the above mentioned work. As
mentioned in X-20 letter, he went and saw the Police
Additional Superintendent Mr. Shanmuga Velanelli. He
only told us to prepare the assessment for these buildings
after inspection. The Group-I prepared the assessment
report or few buildings in Tanjore. He did this work on 'On
duty'. They received T.A. and D.A. from the Government.
The above work is not only 'on duty' but also 'special duty'.
The PWD has a separate subordinate service rules. It is
wrong to say that as per the police instruction, he has
assessed at for more value and prepared the report
Ex.P.822 and that the values found in Ex.P.822 is not a
real value.

Ex.P.822, pages 247 was prepared before the
information came from the Electrical Engineer. After
receiving the reports, column 2 to 8 items were written in
pen. After assessing each item, it is signed in the last
page of the report.

During the cross-examination, he has stated that in
Ex.P.822 the assessment date is not mentioned. After
assessment, the report was sent within 3 months. They
have not seen the approved plan for the assessed
buildings. For the purpose of the assessment they have
prepared a model plan, keeping in mind the floor.
This model plan will not have side wall, elevation
door and the measurements of the windows. On the 1st
day of assessment, they came to know about the details of
buildings. On the 2nd day they took the measurements for
about 2 hours and assessed the buildings. 3rd day also
they took 2 hours. 3rd day they took the measurements
and they fixed the amount of assessment at the office. On
3.2.97, they fixed assessment rate in the report and sent
that report on 4.2.97 during our assessment time, no
other individuals were with them. But inspector
Rangarajan from Tanjore was with them. No police
officers from Chennai were there. They did not assess
either, through test in laboratory or through scientific
methods. The order for the assessment is also not
submitted. The Chief Engineer sent a letter to send the
assessment report on 7.1.97 to them. The assistant
Engineer Rajaram who has come with them to assess the
electrical work was the junior most engineers from his
department. The assessment made by the electrical
engineer should be approved by his higher officer after
verification. But in Ex.P.822, the report was neither
verified nor approved by the higher officer of the electrical
engineer. Their engineers had neither the right to assess
nor value the electrical works. They have not mentioned
the name and the details of the persons who were
enquired to find out the date of construction of those
buildings. The people whom they enquired told them
different values. Our assessment report was prepared on
the basis of information received from outsiders. The
inspected buildings might have been constructed before
1991 also. The new buildings which they inspected were
incomplete and these new constructions might have been
constructed a few months before our inspection. The PWD
price assessment list is not enclosed with Ex.P.
They have not differentiated and assessed in
Ex.P.822 whether it is under price list or not. The
Ex.P.822 did not have the details of how and from which
place, and in which shop, the prices were found out. The
price was not prepared as per the open market price list.
The price of the things cannot be permanent. If the year
of construction differed, the assessment rate also would
differ. In Ex.P.822, the amount of wear and tear is not
mentioned. During their inspection, the compound wall
was not constructed completely. As the steel things could
not be weighed, they have assessed those on their
assumption. If the owner of the building, personally,
purchased the things, 25% of expense will be lesser than
their assessed amount.

Even if it is said that the 1st item in Ex.P.822 was
built in the year 1991-92, this might have been
constructed in 1989-90. Like that the items 2 and 3 found
in Ex.P.822 would have been constructed, 2 or 3 months
before their inspection.

During their inspection, they have taken the notes of
proceedings in 1 quire note book, about 100 pages. But
the note book was not enclosed in their report. The plan,
the design preparation and the amount for supervision
mentioned in their report is also on their assumption. The
drinking water connections were not seen outside.
Regarding this drinking water connection also they have
fixed the value on their assumption. In the same way the
sanitary items were also assessed. They have not
calculated the total length and total measurement of pipes
for water connection. The steel pipes were also assessed
on assumption. The police did not enquire and take his
deposition. Though, he has signed regarding the electrical
works, he was not responsible for its assessment.

PW-153 was recalled and re-examined by the learned
Special Public Prosecutor and questions were posed as
under:

Q: In your examination in chief you have given the year of
construction of building 1991-92, 1994-95 and 1995-96
but, in your cross-examination dated 24.12.2002 you have
stated that. Even if it stated that the first item in Ex.P.822
was built in the year 1991-92, this might have been
constructed in 1989-90. Like that the items 2 and 3 found
in Ex.P822 would have been constructed 2 or 3 months
before our inspection". Among the two versions which one
is the correct?
A: The earlier version i.e. which is stated in my
examination in chief is correct.

Q: In 2000 October the deposition recorded read over
then accepted it as correct and signed it likewise in 2002
also your deposition was read over by the court you
accepted as correct then signed it?
A: During the first examination i.e. in the year 2000 my
deposition has been read over accordingly I accepted it as
correct and signed it but, so far as the deposition in the
year 2002 is concerned I was not permitted to go through
the deposition, I was asked to sign the same in the
presence of the learned counsel for the accused.
It is not correct to say today on account of
compulsion I have given such evidence.

PW.154 -Kamal Batcha. He supplied provisions to A1 and
A2.

PW.155 - Subburaj, Manager of Keerthi Lal Kalidas and
Company Jewellers- He speaks about the valuation of
jewellery and important things.

PW.156 - Mohandas, Company Secretary, M/s. Kothari
Orient Finance Limited. He speaks about fixed deposit.

PW.157 - S.R.Elangovan speaks about Namadhu MGR.

PW.158 - G.N.Gopalarathinam, Chartered Accountant.

PW.159 -Rajagopalan has deposed that in the year 1993,
he waspromoted as Assistant Chief Registrar of
Registration Department. Firstly, he took charge as
Assistant Chief Registrar, North Chennai, District Registrar
Office. North Chennai Registrar Office has power to
register the documents from all the States except Jammu
& Kashmir. In North Chennai District, six Sub-Registrars
worked under him. The Administration and Documentation
power was given to him as an Assistant Chief Registrar of
the District. Jayaraman spoke to him over telephone and
asked him to come to the house of the then Chief Minister.
Accordingly, he went there. He has registered the
documents in favour of J.Elavarasi, V.N.Sudhakaran and
Sasikala.
He has further deposed that his higher officer is Iyer.
He was DIG Registration in the year 1994. He directed
him to discharge the duties within the framework of law.
Accordingly, he discharged his duties. He has visited the
Poes Garden nearly 20-25 times with regard to registration
of documents. He has further deposed that he contacted
Siva - Real Estate Agent over phone. He told in
Thirunelveli about 200 acres of red soil land was available
for sale, the interested person can approach. Siva told
him that the lands are in Cheerakulam and Vellakulam,
then he enquired about the details of the price. He told
him that per acre the price was from Rs.4,000/- to
Rs.5,000/- according to the land. The documents
registered were through the Power of Attorney Holder.
Some of the documents were registered in the name of the
Company and some were registered in the name of the
persons. The document registered in the name of the
company does not indicate from which Bank, the sale
consideration amount was drawn. From which Bank, the
purchaser has taken the draft. Sometimes representative
names were there. Most of the documents which he
registered are related to the companies. He has not
registered the documents illegally. If the conditions are
correct and if the valuation is according to the guidelines,
then only he registered. For doing registration, there is
no need for the purchaser to come to the Registration
Office. Sometimes, without the knowledge of the
purchaser, there are chances for registration of the land.
Third accused has not come to their registration office
once.

The deposition of this witness runs to about 100
pages. Therefore, relevant sale deeds statements have
been made and they are as follows:
EXHIBITS PROPERTIES VALUE IN RS.
Ex.P137 10 acres, 41 cents, Sirudavur 1,90,000.00
Ex.P122 11.85 acres, Sirudavur village 1,90,000.00
Ex.P138 11.28 acres, Sirudavur village 1,90,000.00
Ex.P123 10.86 acres, Sirudavur village 1,80,000.00
Ex.P139 10.78 acres, Sirudavur village 1,70,000.00
Ex.P124 7.44 acres, Sirudavur village 1,10,000.00
Ex.P905 3.30 acres, Sirudavur village 82,500.00
Ex.P906 34 cents, Eenjamabakkam 1,07,000.00
village
Ex.P907 34 cents, Eenjabakkam village 1,07,000.00
Ex.P908 34 cents, Eenjambakkam 1,07,000.00
village
Ex.P79 Luz Church road, Mylapore 1,87,000.00
Ex.P324 53 acres, 66 cents, Serakulam 1,07,320.00
village
Ex.P75 3 acres, 51 cents, 1,40,000.00
Karumkuripallam Village
Ex.P76 4 acres, 52 cents, 1,80,000.00
Karumkuripallam Village
Ex.P77 4.15 acres, Karumkuripallam 1,64,000.00
Village
Ex.P78 4.15 acres, Karumkuripallam 1,64,000.00
Village
Ex.P771 1.50 Acres, Siradavur village 39,000.00
Ex.P46 4830 sq.ft. thiruvankulam 1,90,000.00
nagar colony, Ambattur
Ex.P125 37 cents, vettuvakami village 1,10,000.00
Ex.P96 5.80 acres, Payyanur village 1,00,000.00
EX.P.97 3.52 acres, payyanur village 1,95,000.00
Ex.P98 5.28 acres, Payyanur village 1,95,000.00
Ex.P99 40 cents, Payyanur village 1,60,000.00
Ex.P100 40 cents, Payyanur village 1,70,000.00
Ex.P101 2.76 acres, Payyanur 1,50,000.00
Ex.P102 4.23 acres, Payyanur village 1,50,000.00
Ex.P103 51 cents, Payyanur village 1,90,000.00
Ex.P68 3197 sq.ft. Arumbakkam 7,50,000.00
village,
Ex.P69 3197 sq.ft, Arumbakkam 7,50,000.00
village,
Ex.P70 4564 sq.ft. parameshwari 30,00,000.00
nagar, Adyar
Ex.P330 73.90 Acres, Serakulam 1,47,800.00
village
Ex.P339 69.7 acres, Serakulam village 1,39,560.00
Ex.P345 60.65 acres, Serakulam 1,21,310.00
village
Ex.P350 42.31 acres, Meerankulam 84,620.00
village
Ex.P351 34.81 ½ acres, Vallakulam 69,630.00
village
Ex.P909 50 cents, Solinaganallur 2,50,000.00
village
Ex.P161 12.70 acres, Oothukadu 1,27,000.00
village
Ex.P291 14.42acres, Oothukadu village 1,44,200.00

Ex.P148 8.60 acres, Oothukadu village 86,000.00
Ex.P363 6.98 acres, Kalvi village 13,960.00
Ex.P366 55 ½ acres, VallaKulam village 1,10,010.00
Ex.P377 57.1 acres, VallaKulam village 1,14,020.00
Ex.P388 89.62 acres. VallaKulam 1,79,240.00
village
Ex.P396 80 acres, VallaKulam village 1,61,910.00
Ex.P408 71.5 acres, Serakulam village 1,51,400.00
Ex.P419 68.9 ½ acres, Meenakulam 1,36,190.00
village
Ex.P431 78.9 ½ acres, Meenakulam 1,56,190.00
village
Ex.P513 4293 sq.ft. Abdulla road 38,00,000.00

Ex.P515 2650 sq.ft, 69, Habibullah 52,00,000.00
road
Ex.P443 48.95 acres, Serakulam 97,000.00
village
Ex.P450 54.98 acres, Vallakulam 1,09,960.00
village
Ex.P456 62.65 acres, Meenakulam 1,25,300.00
village
Ex.P143 3.11 acres, Vandanapalai 62,200.00
Village
Ex.P144 4.44 acres, Vandanapalai 88,800.00
Village
Ex.P145 6.50 acres, Vandanapalai 1,30,000.00
Village
Ex.P146 8.91 acres, Vandanapalai 1,78,200.00
Village
Ex.P772 3.84 acres, Vandanapalai 7,68,000.00
Village
Ex.P165 6 acres, Oothukadu village 60,000.00
Ex.P172 11.66 acres, Oothukadu 1,16,600.00
village
Ex.P147 8.10 acres, Vandam Palai 1,62,000.00
Village
Ex.P179 - 96,500.00
Ex.P180 10.29 acres, Oothukadu 1,02,900.00
Village
Ex.P467 16.51 acres, Serakulam 33,020.00
Village
Ex.P472 30.75 acres, Vallakulam 67,500.00
Village
Ex.P.477 51.40 acres, Meerankulam 1,02,800.00
Village
Ex.P488 59.82 acres, Meerankulam 1,19,640.00
Village
Ex.P184 8.32 acres, OOthukudu Village 83,200.00
Ex.P190 86.5 acres, Oothukudu Village 86,500.00
Ex.P153 1.8 acres, Oothukudu Village 10,800.00
Ex.P154 1.8 acres, Oothukudu Village 10,800.00
Ex.P155 1.80 acres, Oothukudu Village 18,000.00
Ex.P156 11.25 acres, Oothukudu 1,12,500.00
Village
Ex.P197 6 acres, 40 ½ cent 64,050.00
Ex.P105 1219.79 sq.meter, 1/1, Luz 9,00,000.00
Avenue, Mylapore
Ex.P106 1219.79 sq.meter, 1/1, Luz 9,00,000.00
Avenue, Mylapore
Ex.P107 1219.79 sq.meter, 1/1, Luz 9,00,000.00
Avenue, Mylapore
Ex.P108 1219.79 sq.meter, 1/1, Luz 9,00,000.00
Avenue, Mylapore
Ex.P109 1219.79 sq.meter, 1/1, Luz 9,00,000.00
Avenue, Mylapore
Ex.P110 1219.79 sq.meter, 1/1, Luz 9,00,000.00
Avenue, Mylapore
Ex.P135 11 cents, Neelankarai Village 6,80,000.00
Ex.P136 11 cents, Neelankarai Village 8,20,000.00
Ex.P717 26740 sq.ft house, V.O.C 11,00,000.00
Nagar, Thanjavoor
Ex.P207 7 acres, 11 ½ cents. 71,150.00
Oothukadu Village
Ex.P214 15.71 acres, Oothukudu 1,57,100.00
Village
Ex.P221 9.50 acres, Oothukudu Village 95,000.00
Ex.P910 20.33 acres, Oothukudu 1,45,000.00
Village
Ex.P911 20.89 acres, Oothukudu 1,45,000.00
Village
Ex.P104 2.3 acres, Payyanoor Village 3,04,500.00
Ex.P912 2.31 acres, Payyanoor Village 3,46,500.00
Ex.P913 1.86 ½ acres, Payyanoor 2,84,000.00
Village
PW.160 - R.Bhavani, Deputy Manager, Indian Bank. He
speaks about Rs.1.50 Crores sanctioned to Jaya
Publications.

PW.161 - R. Ramesh, Assistant Manager, Indian Bank.

PW.162 - N.Subramanian, Senior Manager, Canara Bank.

PW.163 - H.Srinivasa Rao, Sub-Registrar, Mareepaly,
Hyderabad.

PW.164 - H.Prabhakaran, Chief Manager, Central Bank of
India, Mumbai. He speaks about the interest paid
Rs.3,17,781/- for the period from 1.7.91 to 30.4.1996

PW.165 - K.R.Latha, Horticultural Officer, Rangareddy
District, Andhra Pradesh. She speaks about the grape
garden. Two varies of grape garden, they are Anab-e-
Shahi grapes and another one is Seedless grapes. She has
seen 1266 plants in 1.84 acres in the above said garden
for seedless grapes.

PW.166 - P.Konda Reddy, Assistant Director of
Horticulture. Evaluations are only approximate and
probable one subject to higher or lower variations.

PW.167 - P.R.Kesavan, Seller of silk sarees, silk dhoti,
silk skirts, clothers for pant and shirts, silk blouse pieces.
Textile worth of Rs.4,84,712.80/-.

PW.168 - S.K.R.Viswanathan, who sold the immovable
property.
PW.169 - R.Krishnamoorthy, who speaks about service
register of Thiru M. Nadarajan.

PW.170 - R. Jayaraman, Village Administrative Officer.
There is no land in the name of Natarajan, S/o.
Saminathan.

PW.171 - Mohammed Yousuff, Village Administrative
Officer. He speaks about land details of Krishnaveni.

PW.172 - Shanmugaiah, Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board.

PW.173 - Gopal Rao, Senior Manager, Canara Bank. Prior
to check period, loan of Rs.2,20,000/- granted to Jaya
Publications.

PW.174 - S. Mani, Sub-Division Manager, Tamil Nadu
Consumer Good Trading Corporation. He has received a
message that due to electrical shock Thiru Jayaraman was
died. All the benefits after his death were distributed to his
wife accused No.4 and his children.
PW.175 - M. Kuppusamy, Senior Manager, Indian Bank.
He speaks about fixed deposit of Rs.13,000/- each kept in
favour of Selvi Shakeela and Selvan Vivek.

PW.176 - N. Balakrishnan, Deputy Chief Officer, Indian
Bank. He speaks about loan of Rs.1,50 Crores released in
favour of Tansi Enterprises.

PW.177- Shanmugha Sundaram, who speaks about loan
application of Tmt. Gunapasini for a sum of Rs.3.75
Crores. On request of Gunapasini, they changed the loan
liability to A2, A3 and A4 since they became share holders.

PW.178 -Arumugam, Press Photographer. He speaks
about the photos taken in the marriage of A3. He received
a cheque of Rs.54,660/- by A1.

PW.179 -Srihari has deposed that he was running a
jewellery shop in the name of Vummidi Bangaru Chetti
Trust at No.11, Nageswara Rao Road, Panagal Park,
T.Nagar, Chennai. He was one of the trustees in that
jewellery shop. His brother V.Sudhakaran is also another
trustee. They have been running the above jewellery shop
since 1972. Now and then they would submit Income Tax
returns of Ummidi Bangaru Chetti Trust. They were doing
business of gold jewellery, diamond jewellery, silver
jewellery and silver vessels 75% of the jewellery, they
were selling by placing ordersfrom outside. The letter
V.B.C.D. will be embossed on all the jewellery sold from
their shop which indicates their shop names. In addition
they would give gold to M. Ramalingam of Kovai and he
would make jewel according to the design they specify.
Likewise would give gold to 7 or 8 people for making
jewels at Bombay. They would also get jewels made for
them from Dharwar of Karnataka State. When they make
jewels some of them would emboss their marks. They
would emboss their marks on the jewels after they
received it. He was a recognized jewellery assesser
appointed by Central Government. He assessed Selvi
Jayalalitha's jewels in the year 1975 Selvi Jayalalitha has
purchased jewels from his shop after he assessed her
jewels in 1975. When Selvi Jayalalitha was the Chief
Minister her representatives contracted through telephone
later purchased jewels from his shop. Selvi Jayalalitha's
representatives contacted them over phone and purchased
gold jewels, diamond jewels and silver articles for Selvi
Jayalalitha. They paid money for the jewels they
purchased. They never asked for receipt. So they never
gave them receipts when Selvi Jayalalitha was Chief
Minister he assessed and certified the jewels for the
purpose of Income Tax which was sent by her. He has
mentioned in detail in the certificate particulars about gold
jewels and diamond jewels quantity, weight and its value.
The certificates bears signature. Once they made one
Diamond Ottiyanam (Daboo-Hipbelt) for Tmt.Sasikala to
make the sent approximately 250 diamonds. They
entrusted the work of making ottiyanam to one
Vedamurthy, gold smith along with Diamonds and gold
entrusted to them by Tmt.Sasikala. On completion of the
making of ottiyanam they handed it over to
Tmt.Sasikalaand received their making charges. When
they assessed, when Selvi Jayalalitha's sent her jewellery
for assessment they did not accompany with receipts
relating to those jewellery. The Prevention of Corruption
Department officials enquired him. They enquired him
about the assessment certificates issued by him. They
showed him the seizure list of the jewels from the house of
Selvi Jayalalitha and enquired him. After revising the
seizure list of the jewels he has marked the jewels which
figured in his assessment certificate. Today he has
brought the copies of the assessment certificate to the
court on 31.3.91. He prepared jewels assessment report
of Selvi Jayalalitha. It contains 4 pages. On the same day
he prepared another jewels assessment report schedule II
containing 2 pages of Selvi Jayalalitha. On 16.1.92 he has
prepared jewels assessment report contained 2 pages for
Selvi Jayalalitha. On 31.3.92, he prepared 3 pages jewel
assessment report for Selvi Jayalalitha. On 31.3.91, he
prepared 2 pages jewel assessment report for
Tmt.N.Sasikala. On that same date he prepared 1 page
schedule-2 jewel assessment report for Tmt.N.Sasikala on
16.1.92 he prepared 2 pages jewel assessment report for
Tmt.N.Sasikala. Schedule-1 refers to gold jewels
Schedule-2 refers to diamond jewels, and also precious
diamond stones jewels.

Approximately 58 items jewels which figured in his
assessment certificate were in the list of jewellery from
seized Selvi Jayalalitha's house by police. Ex.P1010
contained 4 pages certificate which he assessed jewels for
Selvi Jayalalitha on 31.3.1991. In that 62 items jewels are
there. It was belongs to schedule-I category. Ex.P1011
contained 2 pages report which he assessed 24 items for
Selvi Jayalalitha on that same date. It belongs to
schedule-II category. Ex.P1012 contained 2 pages
assessment report which he assessed 26 item jewels for
Selvi Jayalalitha on 16.1.92. Ex.P1013 contained 3 pages
report which assessed 41 item jewels for Selvi Jayalalitha
on 31.3.92. Ex.P1014 contained 2 pages assessment
report for 46 item jewels assessed by him for
Tmt.N.Sasikala on 31.3.91 and category belongs to
schedule-I Ex.P1015 contain 1 page assessment report for
16 item jewels assessed by him for Tmt.N.Sasikala on that
same date. Ex.P1016 contained 2 pages assessment
report which he assessed 34 item jewels for
Tmt.N.Sasikala on 16.1.92 Ex.P703 is a seizure mahazar
showed to him by police while seizing the jewels from the
house of Selvi Jayalalitha. The jewel item details are as
follows:
Item No.07 in Ex.P1010 is same as item 91 in Ex.P703
Item No.09 in Ex.P1010 is same as item 99 in Ex.P703
Item No.11 in Ex.P1010 is same as item 96 in Ex.P703
Item No.24 in Ex.P1010 is same as item 37 in Ex.P703
Item No.27 in Ex.P1010 is same as item 223 in Ex.P703
Item No.32 in Ex.P1010 is same as item 355 in Ex.P703
Item No.46 in Ex.P1010 is same as item 271 in Ex.P703
Item No.61 in Ex.P1010 is same as item 63 in Ex.P703
Item No.05 in Ex.P1015 is same as item 413 in Ex.P703
Item No.13 in Ex.P1015 is same as item 397 in Ex.P703
Item No.05 in Ex.P1014 is same as item 344 in Ex.P703
Item No.26 in Ex.P1014 is same as item 205 in Ex.P703
Item No.27 in Ex.P1014 is same as item 421 in Ex.P703
Item No.28 in Ex.P1014 is same as item 436 in Ex.P703
Item No.30 in Ex.P1014 is same as item 374 in Ex.P703
Item No.31 in Ex.P1014 is same as item 428 in Ex.P703
Item No.33 in Ex.P1014 is same as item 212 in Ex.P703
Item No.36 in Ex.P1014 is same as item 456 in Ex.P703
Item No.40 in Ex.P1014 is same as item 437 in Ex.P703
Item No.42 in Ex.P1014 is same as item 375 in Ex.P703
Item No.46 in Ex.P1014 is same as item 298 in Ex.P703
Item No.20 in Ex.P1012 is same as item 363 in Ex.P703
Item No.21 in Ex.P1012 is same as item 09 in Ex.P703
Item No.22 in Ex.P1012 is same as item 406 in Ex.P703
Item No.23 in Ex.P1012 is same as item 465 in Ex.P703
Item No.26 in Ex.P1012 is same as item 136 in Ex.P703
Item No.04 in Ex.P1016 is same as item 54 in Ex.P703
Item No.06 in Ex.P1010 is same as item 53 in Ex.P703
Item No.08 in Ex.P1016 is same as item 423 in Ex.P703
Item No.13 in Ex.P1016 is same as item 150 in Ex.P703
Item No.19 in Ex.P1016 is same as item 453 in Ex.P703
Item No.27 in Ex.P1016 is same as item 362 in Ex.P703
Item No.06 in Ex.P1016 is same as item 07 in Ex.P703
Item No.08 in Ex.P1013 is same as item 32 in Ex.P703
Item No.09 in Ex.P1013 is same as item 45 in Ex.P703
Item No.15 in Ex.P1013 is same as item 28 in Ex.P703
Item No.21 in Ex.P1013 is same as item 149 in Ex.P703
Item No.22 in Ex.P1013 is same as item 120 in Ex.P703
Item No.23 in Ex.P1013 is same as item 152 in Ex.P703
Item No.26 in Ex.P1013 is same as item 464 in Ex.P703
Item No.29 in Ex.P1013 is same as item 135 in Ex.P703
Item No.31 in Ex.P1013 is same as item 134 in Ex.P703
Item No.33 in Ex.P1013 is same as item 224 in Ex.P703
Item No.37 in Ex.P1013 is same as item 55 in Ex.P703
Item No.38 in Ex.P1013 is same as item 54 in Ex.P703
Item No.39 in Ex.P1013 is same as item 49 in Ex.P703
Item No.40 in Ex.P1013 is same as item 59 in Ex.P703
Item No.09 in Ex.P1011 is same as item 122 in Ex.P703
Item No.11 in Ex.P1011 is same as item 121 in Ex.P703
Item No.16 in Ex.P1011 is same as item 143 in Ex.P703
Item No.17 in Ex.P1011 is same as item 461 in Ex.P703
Item No.22 in Ex.P1011 is same as item 159 in Ex.P703
Item No.23 in Ex.P1011 is same as item 201 in Ex.P703

During the Cross-examination, he has deposed that
he was graduat in B.Sc. Geology. He has been appointed
as an assessor for Income Tax Department and Central
Finance Department. He has been an assessor since 1975.

For the first time 3 years ago police met him
regarding this case Police enquired him about the purchase
of jewellery of Selvi Jayalalitha and her people and also
about the types of jewellery and when these were
purchased from our company. They enquired him at office
of the Prevention and Corruption Department. He was
called office and gone to there approximately 10 times of
enquiry. They called him 10 times to Prevention of
Corruption without issuing a notice. He asked them about
this to them. Still they did not issue any notice to him.
During those enquiry they forced him to sign on written
papers for which he refused. During those enquiry police
asked him for 10 years of receipt books of his company.
Inspite of protesting that those books do not contain
receipts regarding sale of jewellery to Selvi Jayalalitha they
seized them. Police seized approximately 300 receipt
books from their company and they returned it back
approximately after 1 year. He does not know that either
to read and write Tamil but he knew to speak Tamil. When
police enquired him Nallamma Naidu reduced everything.
He stated into writing and secured his signature. The
details which he stated were true details. Generally when
they assessed a jewel they would assess it on the basis of
the value prevalent on those days. Gold and Silver price is
determined on day to day basis. Once a year the
diamond's price would vary. They maintain a record of a
gold and silver's listed price since 1965 in their company.
The value of gold and silver is increasing but not
decreasing. The year of purchase of gold cannot be
determined by merely seeing the gold jewellery and the
same is applicable to silver wear and diamond jewellery. If
they continuously wear gold jewellery there is a chance of
very less depreciation. There is a less possibility for wear
and tear. This condition will be applicable to gold chain
gold ring and gold bangles also. There is no chance for
wear and tear for the jewellery if there is no rubbing. In
1960 one sovereign gold's price was approximately
Rs.100/-. In 1970 one sovereign gold was approximately
Rs.120/-. Likewise cost of every sovereign prevailed at
each year can be found out. In the same way they can
find out the value of silver and diamond also. If the
jewellery is used with great care and caution and used
occasionally it will retain its shine and there will be no
wear and tear. There will be not even a minute
depreciation. They cannot determine accurate weight of
stone studded and they could not determine the exact
weight of gold and stones separately.
He did not give the documents relating to Ex.P1010
to Ex.P1016 to the Prevention of Corruption Department
Police. After he evaluates the jewels in Ex.P1010 to
Ex.P1016. On the dates mentioned in the documents,
while tendering evidence in this case he did not examine
Ex.P703 with reference to assessment report. He has not
seen Ex.P703 so far. Further while he was tendering
evidence in the court he was not shown any jewels. When
Nallamma Naidu recorded his statement they did not ask
him to compare the assessment report Exs.P1010 to
P1016 with Ex.P703 and asked him to take statement.
Further without seeing the jewels and pursuing the details
mentioned in Ex.P703 he cannot state whether they
include in the assessment report. Generally gold's
standard cannot be fairly determined by merely looking at
it. Its standard can be assessed only approximately.
Generally while assessing gold's standard it will not be
rubbed with Touch stone thereafter treating the stone with
acid. This process is adopted only if they have suspicion.
Selvi Jayalalitha has never contacted us telephonically and
told regarding purchase of jewellery. He did not make his
statement that Selvi Jayalalitha has contacted them
telephonically. Further nobody said to present Selvi
Jayalalitha telephonically contacted them regarding
purchase of jewellery and they did not come to their
establishment on the basis of talk and purchased any
jewels. As either Selvi Jayalalitha or her representatives
made any purchases of jewellery in their shop question of
asking or giving receipt does not arise. During the
examination in Chief he has stated in his evidence that he
made Diamond Ottiyanam for Tmt.Sasikala on receipt
diamonds from Tmt.Sasikala on the basis of instructions of
police. But she did not sendthem 250 diamonds and gold
for making ottiyanam. Further during the course of the
examination Chief he has stated that after making
ottiyanam and received making charges only under the
compulsion of police. As they did not make ottiyanam
question of handing it over to Tmt.Sasikala did not arise.
He does not know that how to read Tamil hence without
reading the examination in Chief he has signed. A
diamond stone can be out to have 57 facets. If the
diamond is having less than 57 facets then its value is less.
Till few years ago Belgium cut diamonds were costlier than
Indian cut diamonds. Weighing standard for diamond is
the carat which is equivalent to 100 cent. Diamond's price
depends on its weight in carats. There is a concept called
Thosham relating to diamonds. Thosham painted Diamond
costs less. It takes some time to assess the diamond
studded with jewels. It will take atleast 20 minutes to
evaluate a diamond relating its facets, thosham, clarity
and weight.

Diamonds studded with jewels will be evaluated
regarding its facets and weight without removing from the
jewels. However, those assessments will be approximate.
The value of gold jewel depends on the basis of its design.
Assessment of jewellery varies from person to person.
Design of the jewellery will not be assessed separately.
Strict test is touch stone test but experienced persons can
assess gold without subjecting it to the test. The value
shown for Exs.P1010 to P1016 were the value shown on
the day of assessment. To determine the quality of
diamond there are fine cutting and medium cutting
methods. If it is a fine cutting it will not be less than 57
facets, it is less than 57 facets it is medium cutting. To
measure the weight of diamond there is a separate
weighing scale and to measure the weight of gold there is
a separate weighing scale. The diamond studded gold
jewels will have more of gold than the diamond in terms of
weight. The diamond studded gold jewellery will be
weighed in toto and the approximate weight will be
assigned to gold and diamond. Some shops in Chennai sell
gold jewels less than estimation price. The fluctuating
prices of gold day to day applicable to only new jewellery
and not applicable to old jewellery and applies to silver and
diamond also. The old gold jewels value in terms of cost
would depend on jewels model purchasers standard,
sellers emergency. All the gold smiths would not come
forward to buy old gold jewels. The jewels relating to
Exs.P1010 to P1016 shows only approximate weight of
gold and diamond. But in Ex.P698 and 698 approximate
weight of gold and diamond is not shown. The diamond
jewelleries, is price cannot be determined without knowing
the exact weight of gold and diamond. Silver and gold's
global price is determined in London and for India it is in
Mumbai. So far as diamond is concerned its global price is
determined in Belgium and for India it is determined in
Mumbai and diamond is measured in terms of carat which
is equal to 100 cent or 100 points.
Cross-examination A1, A2 and A4 is adopted.
This witness was recalled and re-examined by the
learned Special Public Prosecutor and questions were posed
as under:

Q: In your examination in chief you have given details with
regard to valuation of jewellery done by you is true and
correct?
A: YES. It is true and it is out of my free will.

Value of diamonds, value of golden jewellery pattern
of jewellery, stoned studded, Diamond studded jewellery
and their value, Belgium cut diamond, Indian cut
diamonds, facets carats in that respect he has been asked
in his cross-examination, based on quality and carats he
has given in his cross-examination. Those details have not
been mentioned in his reports. But he has taken those
details into consideration. The details are not mentioned
in the reports.

PW.180 - M. Sukhila, Manager, IVIKTEK Pvt. Ltd.
Company. They supplied 3 stabilizers to A1. They prepared
total invoice of Rs.91,157.64/- value of 4KV stabilizers is
Rs.2815/-, value of 5 KV stabilizers is Rs.3,085/-. Above
were supplied. Company is about 4 ½ years.

PW.181 - Thangarajan, Assistant Engineer, Building
Construction-3, Sub-Division, PWD, Chennai-1. He speaks
about the estimation of expenses incurred at the wedding
and reception of A3. Vijay Shankar gave drawing of
wedding choultry and measures of Pandal. He prepared
Ex.P1019 estimation report.

PW.182 -A.R. Arunachalam is a Chief Manager of Indian
Bank, Regional Office, Trichy. He was working as Chief
Manager, Indian Bank, Abiramapuram Branch from
December 1995. He speaks about land granted to firms,
Companies, Individual namely, A1, A2, A3, A4. He speaks
about grant of Rs.1,50,00,000/- vide Ex.P1027 - OMTL
Indian Bank in favour of Jaya Publications. He has further
deposed that grant of loan of Rs.3,75,00,000/- to
Agricultural MD Loan, Indian Bank in favour of Guna
Bhushini vide Ex.P1101. Accused No.1 took loan of
Rs.90,00,000/- from Indian Bank vide Ex.P1114. He
further deposed that grant of loan of Rs.25,00,000/- in
favour J Real Estate vide Ex.P1162. He further deposed
that grant of loan of Rs.12,46,000/- in favour of JS
Housing vide Ex.P1172. He has further deposed that grant
of loan of Rs.50,00,000/- in favour J Farm House vide
Ex.P1211. He has further deposed that grant of loan of
Rs.2,50,00,000/- in favour Accused No.2 - Sasikala vide
Ex.P1260. He has further deposed that grant of loan of
Rs.1,57,00,000/- in favour Accused No.3 - V.N.Sudhakaran
vide Ex.P1330. He has further deposed that grant of loan
of Rs.1,65,00,000/- in favour Accused No.3 -
V.N.Sudhakaran/Ramraj Agro Mills Ltd. vide Ex.P1354. He
has further deposed that grant of loan of Rs.17,85,274/- in
favour Mahalakshmi Kalyana Mantapa (V.N.Sudhakaran)
vide Ex.P1357.
He speaks about the transaction that has been
carried out by accused No.2-Sasikala, companies and
firms. An amount of Rs.1.50 Crore was given as loan under
OMTL scheme to Jaya Publications. Ex.P.1114 is the credit
voucher dated 18.06.1992 for the fixed deposit of Rs.1
Crore made in the name of Miss. Jayalalitha. They have
sanctioned 90% loan on the basis of the deposit. He has
deposed that bank has sanctioned a term loan of Rs.25
Lakhs to Sri. V.N. Sudhakaran who has signed on behalf of
the company. Ex.P1171 is the signed letter dated
22.12.1994 submitted by V.N. Sudhakaran on behalf of
J.S. Housing Development asking for a loan of Rs.12.46
Lakhs from their bank. This loan is sought to develop the
property at Door No.40-41, Murphy Street, Slinganalur and
the said loan was sanctioned by their head office.
Ex.P1172 is the copy of the sanction ticket dated
17.10.1995. Ex.P1210 is the signed letter given by the
partner V.N. Sudhakaran on behalf of J. Farm House
asking for a loan of Rs.50 Lakhs to develop the properties
at Enjambakkam and Solinganallur. Ex.P1211 is the copy
of the Tele-fax message sent from their Head Office to
their branch sanctioning the loan of Rs.50 Lakhs.

That on 21.03.1994, a letter signed by the Managing
Director-Sasikala from Anjaneya Printers was given asking
for a loan of Rs.25 Lakhs on O.D. required for working
capital hypothecating the machinery as per Ex.P.1229.
Ex.P1230 is the signed letter dated 31.8.1994 given by the
Managing Director of Anjaneya Printers, Sasikala asking for
a loan of Rs.50 Lakhs. Ex.P1104 is the copy of the sanction
ticket dated 04.1.1995 received by their branch from their
Head Office, sanctioning Rs.25 Lakhs over draft and Rs.50
Lakhs term loan to Anjaneya Printers. Ex.P1231 is the
signed application given by the Managing Director of
Anjaneya Printers, Sasikala asking for a term loan of Rs.75
Lakhs. They have permitted over draft facility to current
account No.1503 in May 1994 itself. Ex.P1258 is the
signed letter dated 11.03.1994 given by the Managing
Partner Sasikala asking for a term loan of Rs.25 Lakhs to
construct Guest House in Neelangarai. Ex.P1259 is the
copy of the sanction letter that was given to their branch
to their Head Officer. Ex.P1260 is the statement of account
for OMTL account No.52. An amount of Rs.15 Lakhs was
released on 13.7.1994 and an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs was
released on 13.1.1995. Ex.P1261 is the signed application
dated 12.9.1994 submitted by the Director of Meadow
Agro Farms (P) Ltd. V.N. Sudhakaran to open a current
account in the name of that company. Ex.P1294 is the
application given to open a current account in the name of
Riverway Agro Products. Ex.P1238 is the letter dated
31.8.1994 signed and submitted by V.N. Sudhakaran on
behalf of the Lex Property Development (P) Ltd. asking for
a loan to construct a Kalyana Mandapa at Door No.149-
150, TTK Road, Chennai. They have asked for a loan of
Rs.157 Lakhs. The Head of their bank has sanctioned a
loan of Rs.133 lakhs. Ex.P.1329 is the letter sent by the
regional office asking us to release the first installment
Rs.45 Lakhs. A term loan or Rs.45 Lakhs has been
released and credited on 25.9.94. Ex.P.1341 is the
application dated 22.12.94 signed and submitted by V.N.
Sudhakaran to open a current account in the name of the
company Ramraj Agro Mills Limited. There is a credit entry
for Rs.8,60,000/- by transfer on 7.1.95. Ex.P.1349 is the
application signed and submitted by V.N. Sudhakaran to
open OCC-19 account in the name of Ramraj Agro Mills
Limited. One Sri. Gandhi has signed in Ex.P1350 dated
19.2.1994. Ex.P1351 is the letter signed and submitted by
V.N. Sudhakaran asking for a loan of Rs.200 Lakhs.
Ex.P.1352 is the sanction ticket received from their head
office sanctioning a loan (OC) of Rs. 165 Lakhs. Ex.P.1353
is the copy of the telex message sent from the central
office asking to transfer the sanctioned loan of Rs.165
lakhs to the same company's account in the Thiruvarur
branch of Indian bank. The partner of Mahasubbulakshmi
Kalyana Mandapam Sri. V.N. Sudhakaran gave a letter
dated 13.12.1994 to the bank. He has asked for a term
loan of Rs.49.21 Lakhs through the letter i.e. Ex.P.1355.
Temporary OD account was allowed after getting
necessary permission from their higher officials. Ex.P1356
is the statement of account. The above said temporary OD
account was confirmed through a letter dated 10.11.94
sent to their branch from their regional office as per
Ex.P1357. As per that letter, an OD of Rs.17,85,274/- was
permitted.
During the cross-examination, it is elicited that the
loan documents were produced.
The evidence of this witness discloses that the
several transactions between the companies, firms and the
individuals and also the loans availed.

PW.183 - T. Ramesh was working as a Managing Director
of Mouli's Advertising Services Company. He was asked to
print the wedding invitation of V.N.Sudhakaran. He took
order and got printed 65,000 wedding invitation and 5,000
car passes. He has prepared a bill of Rs.11,00,000/- for
printing the above invitations and car passes. He gave
invoices to Jawahar. Ex.P1284 is the cheque dated
15.9.1995. A-1 has signed on the cheque.
During the cross-examination, he states that he has
not produced the document for having received a sum of
Rs.10,50,000/- for printing. He has received Ex.P1284 -
cheque for AIDMK party's work.

PW.184-A. Vincent was running a Travel Agency under
the banner of Vincent Travels, Chennai. He has sent cars
for the marriage function of V.N.Sudhakaran. He charged
Rs.25,502/-. He has received the cheque for a sum of
Rs.25,502/-. Cheque was signed by Selvi Jayalalitha.

During the cross-examination, he states that original
invoice was given to All India Anna DMK's Office,
Royapettai.

PW.185 - A. Premkumar was running a Tourist Car Rental
Company in the name of 'ANGER CABS'. He used to get
requisition from Tamil Nadu Government House. In
September, 1995, at the request of Tamil Nadu Guest
House, he has sent six cars. Cars were hired for the use of
VIP guests in connection with V.N.Sudhakarn's wedding.
He has prepared invoice for Rs.19,211/-. The invoice
amount was paid through cheque dated 23.9.1995.
Cheque was signed by Selvi.Jayalalitha.

PW.186 - Chalapathy Rao was the furniture hirers.
Sachithanandam, PRO of former Chief Minister requested
for tables and chairs in connection with V.N.Sudhakarn's
marriage. He gave the cheque for Rs.1,30,000/- as
advance amount. He asked to deliver the tables and chairs
to MRC Nagar and MGR Film City. Mr.Naveen - Deputy
Manager of Adayar Par Sheraton Hotel asked him to supply
decorative articles and clothes. These requisitions were
sought in connection with the marriage of V.N.Sudhakaran.
Cheque for a sum of Rs.57,250/- was given and the same
was issued by Selvi Jayalalitha on 6.9.1995. The balance
amount of Rs.2,65,000/- was with them.
During the cross-examination, he states that certain
articles were rented-out for the purpose of party function.

PW.187 - R. Pulikesi was working as DIG of Registration
in Registration Department, Trichy. He gave certified
copies of documents to Anti-Corruption Police i.e. Jaya
Publication's Form-I dated 2.2.1990 which was registered
on 5.2.1990. Ex.P1288 is the certified copy of that form
given by him. Copy of registration is Ex.P1289.
Registration number of Jaya Publication is 152/1990. Sasi
Enterprises consists of partners viz., Jeyaraman
Jayalalitha, Vivekanandan, Sasikala. The date of Form-I is
1990. The registration date is 21.5.1990. Ex.P1290 is the
certified copy of Form-I. Ex.P1291 is the certified copy of
the Registration Certificate No.684/1990. He has
submitted the original documents of certified copies of
Exs.P1288 to P1291. Some discrepancies about the date
in the documents were elicited in the cross-examination.

PW.188 - Sundaresan was working in "Dina Thanthi" a
Tamil daily newspaper. He was a Senior Advertisement
Manager. On 9.9.1995, the Rock Advertisement Company
gave advertisement pertaining to the General Secretary to
All India Anna DMK to advertise in Chennai and other
editions. They demanded that the advertisement have to
be published on 10.9.1995 in Chennai edition and on
11.9.1995 in other editions. He has furnished the full page
advertisement appeared in "Dina Thanthi" dated
10.9.1995. M.O.1593 is the advertisement. They have
sent a bill of Rs.2,47,616/- to the Rock Company. They
have received a sum of Rs.2,10,473/- after deduction of
commission. If Government issues the advertisement, it
should bear Government emblem, name of the
Department and name of the Officer. But, M.O.1593 does
not contain these particulars.

PW.189 - Mahalingam was the office administrator of the
All India Anna DMK Head Office from 1991 to 2000. He
was entrusted with the responsibilities of sending wedding
invitation of V.N.Sudhakarn's marriage to the party
members by post. He has sent 56,000 invitations from
Anna Salai Head Post Office to the party members. He has
paid Rs.4/- for each invitation. Its total cost was about
Rs.2,24,000/-. He has received amount from Jawahar
Babu, Joint Secretary of the former Chief Minister. 56,000
invitations were sent by his Assistants namely, Ramesh,
Sukumar, Krishna Murthy, Mani and others. He did not
sign the vouchers for having received any amount. He
does not have any documents to show whether invitations
were sent by Certificate of Posting or by Registered Post.
Accused No.2 and accused No.4 did not give money to
him.

PW.190 - Kanniyappan was running a company called
Lakshmi Marbles. Sasikala told him that there was a job
involving the laying of marble stones at Hyderabad.
Sasikala was introduced by Vijayan. Vijayan gave address
of vineyard of Hyderabad. He went to the spot. He laid
marble stones for the flooring of the building in the
vineyard. He took about 90 days. He has received
lumpsum advance of Rs.10,000/- net cash. The required
marble stones were available at Mudharabad itself. After
finishing the work, wages of Rs.1,50,000/- was received
from Vijayan at Poes Garden. He has supplied marble
stones from their company for a building at Alatthur,
Bahabalipuram Road which belongs to former Chief
Minister. He gave bill of Rs.1,35,000/-. The amount was
not paid. They told him to supply marble stones to the
second accused to Sengamalar Thaayar, Women's College,
Mannarkudi. He has delivered the marble stones. It was
cost about Rs.8,50,000/-. He was referring to a document
of the year 1995. He has received the above amount of
Rs.8,50,000/- by cash in installments. Apart from this, he
has received a cheque signed by Ilavarasi for the supply of
marble stones for a Siruthavoor building and for the work
done at Hyderabad. He has received a cheque signed by
Jayalalitha. Ex.D4 is the receipt of Rs.3,93,360/- (6,000
sq.ft. of Indo Italian 'C' quality at the rate of Rs.55/- per
sq.ft. including taxes) dated 10.9.1995 for having supplied
the marble stones to Ilavarasi. In the same way, Ex.D5 is
the receipt of Rs.3,27,800/- (5,000 sq.ft. of Indo Italian 'C'
quality at the rate of Rs.55/- per sq.ft. including taxes)
dated 10.9.1995 for having supplied the marble stones to
Ilavarasi. Through the above said two receipts, marble
stones were supplied to a building which is at Alathur. He
has also supplied marble stones to J Farm House Company
building which is at Seashell Avenue. Ex.D6 is the receipt
of Rs.1,91,912/- (7,000 sq.ft. of White Marble Slab 'C'
quality at the rate of Rs.23/- per sq.ft. including taxes)
dated 1.12.1995 for having supplied the marble stones.
He has received the amount through cheque. Ex.D7 is the
receipt of Rs.1,89,170/- (6,900 sq.ft. of White Marble Slab
'C' quality at the rate of Rs.23/- per sq.ft. including taxes)
dated 1.2.1995 for having supplied the marble stones. He
has received the amount through cheque. Ex.D8 is the
receipt No.20 of Rs.77,957/- (1,090 sq.ft. of Marble Slabs
at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq.ft. including taxes) dated
29.1.1996 for having supplied the marble stones. He has
received the amount through cheque. He laid-down the
stones at Ilavarasis' house in Alathur, for which the stones
were brought from Mumbai.
During the cross-examination, he states that College
management gave amount with regard to the work.

PW.191-V. Srinivasan is a musical instrument Mandolin
player. Mr. Jawahar asked him over phones that not to
accept any other appointments on the day of marriage of
Sudhakaran. He went to marriage reception which was
held at film city, Cinema Nagar, Egmore, Chennai and
conducted the Mandalin Orchestra. When they asked him
about the money, he refused to take the money, as it was
Chief Minister's function. They gave him a silver plate, silk
saree and a small kumkum box. When he was enquired by
the police, he handed over the above mentioned things to
the police. The police have taken the silver plate small
kumkum box and silk saree from him in the year 1997.
Mahazar was not prepared at that time. When he
participated in the musical programmes, these kind of gifts
would be given to him.

PW.192 - Sanjai Jain is the proprietor of TITAN show
room situated at crown court No.34, Cathedral Road,
Chennai-86. Mr. Jawahar, placed an order of 34 TITAN
watches. He delivered the watches. Price of 34 watches
amounting to Rs.1,34,565/- was paid by cash.

PW.193-S.Girichandran, during 1991 to 1998, he worked
as a Branch Commercial Executive in Blow Plast Ltd. Police
asked them to assess the value of the suit cases. There
were about 214 suit cases. The total value of 214 suit
cases is Rs.3,71,945/-. While assessing the value of the
suit cases, two witnesses were present. He put the value
for those VIP suit cases prevailed at that time. That value
was put approximately. He has not taken into
consideration about wear and tear and the resale value of
the suit cases. He does not know about the resale value of
the suit cases.

PW.194-Ramesh, worked as a Manager (Administrative)
in Vijaya Auto Sales & Services (P) Ltd., Poondhamalli Bye-
pass Road, Chennai-56. The company used to service the
vehicles such as Tempo Travelers, Trax Jeep, Matador Van
etc. He serviced the Trax Jeeps, which come from Former
Chief Minister Selvi Jayalalitha's house from 1992 to 1994.
They serviced the Trax Jeeps bearing Nos. TSK-5850, TSJ-
7299, TSJ-7200, TN-09-B-6966, TN-09-A-9295. For that
they gave credit bills amounting to Rs.1,62,283-95/- They
gave cheque of Rs.44,341-35.

PW.195-Narayana Rao, working as an Accountant to Late
Mr. Subburama Reddy, former MP. He was one of the
Directors of the company floated by Mr. Subburama
Reddy. The name of the company was Signora Business
Enterprises (P) Ltd. He wanted to be one of the Directors
of the Company. He signed the necessary application and
papers for the floating of the said company. He was having
450 shares, each share costing Rs.10/-. Shares were
transferred to J. Ilavarasi. He received a cheque for
Rs.4,500/- from J. Ilavarasi being the value of his shares.
PW.196-Aijaz Ahmed owned tailoring shop in the name
and style of M/s. Syed Bakher & Co., situated at No.34,
Cathedral Road, Chennai. He stitched 22 suits, 22 shirts, 3
Sherwanis and 3 Jibbas. He received a cheque of
Rs.1,41,025/- towards the stitching charges. One
Ramkumar has paid the stitching charges of Rs.1,41,025/-
on behalf of Mr. Sudhakaran. Ramkumar being the
maternal uncle of Sathyalakshmi who was the bride for
Sudhakaran, he paid the stitching charges.

PW.197-R. Yogananth was working as an accountant in
Thevar Automobiles Petrol bunk. He used to fill petrol,
diesel, and oil for Jaya Publication, Namadhu MGR and Sasi
Enterprises vehicles also. For each, he used to send
separate bills for Sasi Enterprises vehicle Registration Nos.
9207, 9027, 3585, 6565, 9090, 7299, 3559, 3744, 1344,
2466, 7200, 345, 3496, 9690. He gave petrol, diesel and
oil for Jaya Publication vehicle bearing Registration
No.7077. During the above period, he has put petrol,
diesel and oil for Rs.10,09,419.35 paise for the above
mentioned vehicles. Cheques were given with Jayalalitha's
and Sasikala's signature. From August 1991 to March
1996, he received the cheques for Rs.9,73,452.04 paise.

PW.198 - M. Jayaraman deposed that he worked as
Under Secretary in Public Works Department, Government
of Tamil Nadu and retired on 31.7.92. He got re-employed
from 1.8.92 to 31.7.93 for one year. Again, he got
reemployed for six months from 1.8.93 to 31.1.94. Mr.
Karuppanan, Secretary to Chief Minister told him to
maintain the household work of the Chief Minister which is
at Poes Garden. Selvi Jayalalitha told him that already one
Mr. Vijayan was taking care of household work and asked
him to join and do the work. They gave him a monthly
salary of Rs.3,000/- as cash. In that also, he used to
attend phone calls of Sasikala, V.N. Sudhakaran. He used
to deposit the amount given by them in the name of
company given by them in the Canara Bank, Mylapore and
in Indian Bank, Abhirampuram. Those works will be done
by himself and Vijayan. Tmt. Sasikala used to tell him
through intercom the details about which Bank and in
which company how much money should be deposited.
Sasikala used to send the amount either in suitcase or bag
through the domestic servants. She used to send Bank
challan book and he used to fill it in favour of the account
which Sasikala told and deposit the money in the bank.
Ex. Nos.1123, 1124, 1139, 1190, 1299, 1300, 1301, 1302,
1303, 1304 bears his signatures. Apart from these, he
used to go to Canara Bank, Mylapore Branch and fill the
challans and remit the money by putting his signatures.
Those works will be done by himself and Vijayan. Vijayan
also used to go to the Bank for remittance of money.
During that period, building was under construction at
Poes Garden. They used to arrange for buying required
things for construction. When he was working in Poes
Garden house, Sasikala, Mr. Sudhakaran, Tmt. Ilavarasi,
Vivek S/o. Ilavarasi, Satya Lakshmi W/o. V.N. Sudhakaran
were permanently residing with Jayalalitha only. Sasikala
used to issue all the orders in the said house. Relatives of
Sasikala like Sundaravathanam brother of Sasikala his wife
Santhana Lakshmi, their daughters, Prabha, Anuradha,
Srethaladevi, daughter of Sasikala's sister Srethaladevi's
husband, Bhaskaran, Sasikala's elder brother's son
Mahadevan, Sasikala's elder sister Vanithamani, her
husband Vivekanandan their son Bhaskaran, his wife
Subhashree used to come to Poes Garden. They
celebrated Vivek's birthday in Poes Garden. There were 12
to 13 vehicles in Poes Garden. There were 11 vehicles like
cars and tempo travelers and 1 scooter and 1 track jeep.
There were 5 girls aged between 10 to 15 years and two
boys to do the domestic work. The above girls and boys
were given Rs.200/- monthly salary. There were AZAGU
security services. They were paid Rs.1,500/- as monthly
salary. They had about 10-12 dogs. His signature is
found on Ex.P811. They allotted 3 sheds for Super Duper
TV Company at SIDCO, Guindy. For that purpose a
demand draft of RS.15,75,000/- had to be sent. Chief
Minister's Assistant Secretary Mr. Natarajan told him that
since Mr. Sudhakaran was not in the house and since the
demand draft had to be sent immediately and since he
could put signature, he asked him to sign for Mr.
Sudhakaran. Accordingly, he put his signature in Ex.P67
which are found at page Nos. 44 and 45. Ram Vijayan and
himself have affixed their signature in the partnership deed
of Gopal Promoters Company. Accused Nos. 2 and 4
affixed their signature on the partnership deed of Lakshmi
Construction Company. Accused Nos. 2 and 4 affixed their
signature on the document pertaining to Vigneshwara
Builders as could be seen in Ex.P1362. Accused Nos. 2
and 4 affixed their signature on the document of
Navasakthi Contractors Builders Company. Ramvijayan
and himself have affixed their signature as witness on the
document of Sea Enclave Company which is Ex.P1364.
Accused Nos. 2 and 4 affixed their signature on the
partnership deed of Iyappa Property Development
Company. Accused Nos. 2 and 4 affixed their signature on
the document of Lakshmi Construction Company which is
Ex.P1365. Accused Nos. 2 and 4 affixed their signature on
the shareholders document of Namashivaya Housing
Developments Company which is at Ex.P1366. Accused
Nos. 2 and 4 affixed their signature on the document of
Sakthi Constructions which is at Ex.P1367. Accused Nos. 2
and 4 affixed their signature on the partnership deed of
Oceanic Constructions Company. Ramvijayan and himself
are witnesses to that document which is Ex.P1368.
Accused Nos. 2 and 4 affixed their signature on the
document of Green Garden Apartment Company.
Ramvijayan and himself are witnesses to that document
which is Ex.P1369. PW.71 - Radhakrishnan wrote a small
sheet and handed over to him to give it to either Sasikala
or Sudhakaran. They used to give money. Susaritha,
Manager of Indian Bank, Abhirampuram, used to come
frequently to Poes Garden to meet Sasikala and
Sudhakaran. She used to come to discuss about the bank
loan. They made Sundarrajan, husband of Tmt.
Sucharitha as shareholder in Spic Jyothi dealership.
Sasikala paid necessary amount of Rs.1.50 lakhs on her
behalf. Mr. Kanniappan, owner of Lakshmi Marbles used to
visit Poes Garden with regard to supply of marbles. Mr.
Vijaya Shankar, the Architect also used to come to the
house. Mr. Sathiyanarayanan from Unnudi Bangary Chetty
Store used to come to Poes Garden to meet Sasikala with
regard to jewellery. PW.179 - Mr. Srihari used come often
to Poes Garden. He belongs to Unnudi Bangary Chetty
Store. PW.228 Rajasekaran and PW.213- Balaji the Auditor
used to come to Poes Garden.

During cross examination, he states that ledgers
were not maintained for wages paid to the workers.
Accused No.1 did not have time to look after the household
affairs. Accused No.2 used to look after the same. For the
vehicles which were in the name of Accused No.1, the
insurance and tax would be paid by Accused No.1 only.
There was no documentary evidence to show that
Rs.3,000/- was paid as monthly salary to Washerman.
There was no documentary evidence to show that workers
were appointed from Arhagu Security Services. Through
Ex.P1123, he remitted cash in a bank in the name of the
company [Fresh Mushroom]. Through Ex.P1124, money
was remitted in the name of the same company. Through
Ex.P1190, money was remitted in the bank in favour of
Green Farm Houses Company. Through Ex.P1299 and
Ex.P1300, money was remitted in the bank account in
favour of Riverway Agro Products Company. Through
Ex.P1301 to Ex.P1304, money was remitted in favour of
Riverway Agro Products Company. The address of Accused
No.4 has been given in Ex.P1135 as No.18, Balamuthu
Krishna Street, T. Nagar, Chennai - 17. Ex.P1159 is dated
5.1.94 and he has signed as witness. Ex.P1169 document
is dated 25.1.94. Ex.P1188 is the document dated
15.1.94. He has signed as witness to that document. For
Ex. Nos.P1206, P1247, P1360, P1361, P1362, P1363,
P1364, P1365, P1366, P1367, P1368, P1369 also he has
signed as witness to these documents. He also joined as
partner in Spic Jyothi dealership. The partnership deed is
registered according to procedure. Accused No.2 gave him
money to become shareholder to the company. His share
amount was Rs.1,50,000/-. He has not taken
authorization from Accused No.3 for signing on behalf of
Mr. Sudhakaran in Ex.P811. He does not know personally
what PW.71 - Radhakrishnan spoke to Sudhakaran and
where they went later. He has not told that he has
remitted any money in the name of Master Vivek. He does
not know personally as to on whose instructions Rama
Vijayan remitted money in the bank and in whose name he
remitted. He does not know how many vehicles were
there in Selvi Jayalalitha's house. He does not personally
know about purchase of things at Selvi Jayalalitha's house
and the amount which was paid to Spic Jyothi Dealership
to become shareholder was his own money. That money
was not given to him by Sasikala. This witness was
recalled vide order on IA No.321. During re-examination,
he has stated that what he has stated in the Chief
Examination is correct.
PW.199-A.G. Krishnamoorthy was running a company in
the name of A.G.K. Travels in Gangureddy Road, Egmore,
Chennai.

PW.200-K.P. Muthusamy is the retired Chief Engineer. He
has deposed that after retirement, he has registered in
"Fellow of Institute of Valuers Organization". He has the
capacity of assessing buildings. Jawahar told him to come
to the Chief Minister's residence, because a marriage was
going to be held, so many arrangements should be made.
Jawahar took him to the first floor and introduced him to
Sasikala. Jawahar told her that he had come over there to
look after the pandal work. He has deposed that the
pandal was made with coconut leaves for the marriage
functions. The pandal work was going on in MRC Nagar.
Vijaya Shankar, architect gave him a plan for pandal and
stage arrangements. The contractors Rajappa Nadappa,
Rajagopal Ramachandra Nadar and Kumareshan Nadar
were also present there. In MRC Nagar, he got introduced
to PWD contractor Mr. Ethiraj. 5 main pandals to perform
the marriage ceremonies with the measurement of 70 ft to
750 ft were put up. They were constructed with coconut
leaves. Coconut leaves pandals with the measurement of
60 ft to 450 ft were put up to serve food for the public. 2
pandals with the measurement of 60 ft and 200ft for
serving food for VIP were put by Mannargudi Rajagopal.
One cooking shed, for VIP's measuring 45th to 135 was put
with asbestos sheet. The above mentioned pandals were
put by Kumareshan Nadar. Marriage platform, bathroom,
the rooms for the bride and bridegroom measuring 9392
sq.ft. were built with bricks and roofed with AC sheet. This
work was done by Ethiraj. Air conditioners expenses were
met by the Former Chief Minister. The work of laying
gravel road, around the marriage plat form was done by
K.V. Natarajan. He brought 2-10 KW generators and 4
mobile generators. The bride's father Mr. Narayanaswamy
gave him a total of sum of Rs.16 Lakhs in 4 instalments.
He told him to submit the accounts to Ramkumar.
Ramkumar is an uncle of the bride. He received that
amount and gave Rs.3 Lakhs to Gopinath, Rs.1,75,000/- to
Pauldasan and Rs.10,000/- to K.V. Natarajan. The wedding
reception was held in Cinema Nagar, Chennai on
10.09.1995. For that the pandal work was done by
Kumareshan Nadar. The decoration work was done by a
North Indian by name Paulbabu. For this Rs.1.50 Lakhs
was sent from Poes Garden. The carpenter's wages, cost of
plywood nails and reaper were paid by him and he gave
the vouchers for that. For this function, 6 connections were
taken from the Electricity Board. From Adyar Vinayagam
temple to MRC Nagar, the paths were decorated with
decorative lights by R. Subramani and G.M. Samy by using
the temporary electrical connections. He gave Rs.
3,54,000/- and odd to Mr. Subramanyam and
Rs.4,89,000/- and odd to G.M. Samy. He presented the
accounts to Mr. Ramkumar and handed over the remaining
amount of Rs.4,422/- to him. When he was supervising
the work in MRC Nagar, one person came and gave him
the marriage invitation with a silver plate, a silk saree, silk
dhoti and Angavastram. During investigation, he handed
over all these things to the Anti-Corruption police. M.O.
1594 is the silver plate given with the invitation, M.O.
1595 is the silk dhoti, M.O.1596 is the sing angavastram
and M.O. 1597 is the silk saree were handed over. He did
not tell the police about the expenses of levelling. He did
not tell particularly about the number of AC machines. He
did not even tell about the kind of AC machines. There are
two kinds of pandals, big and small, he only told which
pandals should be done by whom. He did not supervise the
work done by Art Director Gopinath. Ramkumar is one of
Shivaji Ganesan's son. He does not remember on which
date Rs.1.50 Lakhs was sent from Poes Garden. He does
not remember who brought that money and gave it to him.
He does not know personally, how much money was spent
in MRC Nagar for the marriage.

PW.201- C.K.R.K.Vidyasagarwas working as an Officer at
Canara Bank, Mylapore Branch, since 14.6.1995. Ex-chief
Minister Selvi Jayalalitha and Tmt. Sasikala had maintained
savings bank account in their Branch. Savings Bank
account No.23832 was opened with Rs.25,20,396.45
paise. This amount was deposited in cash by Selvi
J.Jayalalitha on 16.4.1991. Rs.1 crore was transferred to
Canfin Homes. On the same date, Rs.86,23,941/- was
transferred to Head Office. The above deposit yielded Rs.1
crore on maturity. The interest amount, i.e. a sum of Rs.1
crore which has been given to Canfin Homes was also
credited to savings bank account. Amount remaining in
savings bank account was deposited in Kamadhenu deposit
scheme vide deposit No.249/94. Rs.75 lakhs was
transferred to this account. Rs.75 lakhs was transferred to
the current account maintained by Sasi Enterprises by
cheque. A cheque for Rs.4,01,131/- was given to VSD
Motors on 20.7.1992 from this account. A cheque for
Rs.9,617/- was given to Salam Stores on 3.12.1992. The
interest earned on fixed deposits of Sriram Investments
and Kotari Oriental Finance Ltd., Fax Universal (Current
Account No.1930) to Current Account 2018 are stated.
Details of the cheque transaction are also stated. On
28.8.1995, Rs.15 lakhs has been transferred from this
account to the account of Green Farm House. On the
same day, a cheque for Rs.10 lakh was sent to J.Farm
House. Rs.30 lakhs was sent through cheque to Sriram
Investments Ltd. on 11.8.1994. Rs.10 lakhs was given by
way of cheque to Metal King on 4.9.1995. The interest on
fixed deposit amounting to Rs.54,247/- vide Ex.P.1382.
For the period between 1.7.1991 and 30.4.1996, a sum of
Rs.1,89,761/- was shown as interest. On 28.4.1994, in
the current account of Sasikala, i.e. account No.2196,
Rs.8,000/- was there. On 8.4.1995, in Current Account
No.2196 (Sasikala), Rs.60 lakhs was there. In the Current
Account No.2277 Metal King, Rs.20 lakhs was there.
Interest on fixed deposit amounting to Rs.24,490/- was
credited to this account. Fixed Deposit was renewed. On
6.5.1995, a cheque was issued to PW.88-Radha
Venkatachalam for Rs.1,90,00,000/-. On the same day,
another cheque was issued in the name of Radha
Venkatachalam for Rs.45 lakhs. On 17.2.1995, Rs.22
lakhs was cleared by way of cheque. Amount transferred
from Current Account No.2196 to the current account
No.2219 of Elavarasi was Rs.36,14,000/- on different
dates. Rs.77,50,000/- was transferred from current
account No.2196 on different dates to the current account
No.2250 of Anjaneya Printers. Rs.31,33,610.80 was
transferred from current account No.2196 to the account
of Metal King on different dates. On 15.4.1995, Rs.15
lakhs was transferred to the current account No.2196 of
Lex Properties. Rs.40 lakhs was transferred from current
account No.2196 (Sasikala) to the account of Super Duper
TV. From the current account No.2196 (Sasikala), on
7.12.1995, Rs.24,275/- was transferred to Super Duper TV
account and Rs.5 lakhs was transferred from current
account No.2196 to Super Duper TV account. From
current account No.2196 (Sasikala), to Meadow account in
a sum of Rs.15 lakhs and Rs.5 lakhs was transferred on
15.4.1995 and 15.7.1995 respectively through cheques.
From Sasikala's account 2196, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was
transferred to the account of Signora. From Sasikala's
current account 2196 to Namadu MGR's current account
No.1952, a sum of Rs.1,93,000/- was transferred. On
maturity, as per the request of the third accused, fixed
deposit along with interest totaling to Rs.5,12,229/- was
credited to current account No.2220. He has deposed
about three demand drafts for Rs.9 lakhs, Rs.9 lakhs, and
Rs.6,50,000/- in the name of Interface Capital Pvt. Ltd.
Vehicle loan of Rs.3,50,000/- was sanctioned to
Sudhakaran. Tmt.Elavarasi's SB account number is
35389. On 23.10.1991, Namadu MGR account No.1952
was transferred from Kellis Pura@ Branch to their Branch.
Cash were credited for about 313 times by S.Balaji,
S.Bhaskaran, Rama Vijayan, Krishnan.

In this account, money was credited several times
through clearing. The money is transferred from some
other accounts to this account and credited in this branch.

Date Name Amount
04.01.1992 Jaya Publications 2,36,000.00
06.01.1992 Jaya Publications 15,000.00
03.01.1992 By transfer 39,650.00
05.05.1993 Jaya Publications 8,68,440.00
21.01.1995 Jayalalitha's Savings 2,00,000.00
Bank Account
No.23832
20.10.1995 Metal King Current 10,00,000.00
Account No.2277
29.12.1995 Sasikala's Current 1,70,000.00
Account No.2196

From Current Account No.1952 of Namadu MGR,
various amounts were transferred on different dates to
Current Account No.2047.

From Jayalalitha's Current Account No.2018, a sum
of Rs.50 lakhs was transferred on 5.5.1993 to Current
Account No.2047.

K.T.R. deposit amount is Rs.1,35,480/-. Maturity
amount is Rs.1,49,544/-. Fixed deposit amount is
Rs.64,520/- and maturity amount is Rs.79,218/-.

Small amounts were withdrawn for every now and
then.
He speaks about transactions between one account
to another account. His evidence is more or less very
vague.

PW.202- Banu Krishnamurthy was working as a Senior
Manager, Bank of Madura, Anna Nagar Branch, Chennai.
On 28.2.1990, Selvi Jayalalitha opens her Saving Bank
Account No.5158. In that branch, she has given her
address as No.36, Poes Garden, Chennai-86. On
30.6.1991, Rs.2,57,886.25 paise cash was there in the
Savings Bank Account. On 30.4.1996, Rs.2,05,152.06
paise cash was in the same account and on 25.7.1991,
cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- was issued in favour of
P.B.Rajaram. From 30.6.1991 to 30.4.1994 in the Savings
Bank account, interest of Rs.47,000/- was deposited in her
account. On 5.5.1990 and 12.1.1990 cheques issued to
Sriram Investments Company for Rs.7,00,000/- and
Rs.5,00,000/- respectively and the amount was deposited
on 30.4.1990. Out of that, Rs.10,00,000/- was transferred
to the monthly interest income account. Rs.8,260/- was
the interest given to this monthly interest income account.
This amount was kept by way of Fixed Deposit for the
period of 24 months. It was matured on 8.6.1992. Then
Rs.10,00,000/- was deposited in favour of the deposit
holder of Indian Bank, Abhirampuram branch by way of
pay order. For the above Rs.10,00,000/-, the amount in
monthly interest was paid to Selvi Jayalalitha's account,
Canara Bank, Kelly's branch by way of pay order on
monthly basis.
During the cross-examination, she states that there
were 13 transactions prior to 30.6.1991 in the said
account. On 1.3.1990, Rs.25,00,000/- was taken from the
above account through cheque. On 1.4.1990, balance was
Rs.31,00,100/-. Till 28.2.1991, credits and debits made in
the account amounted to Rs.62,57,986.25 paise. The
credited money in bank account after 25.9.1991 was the
amount accrued through interest of Rs.1,92,072.10. The
same amount was there in the account on 31.8.1991 also.
From 1.4.1995 to 29.2.1996, the interest was credited in
the above account and the amount is Rs.2,05,152.06
paise. On 25.7.1991, Rs.1,00,000/- was given to Rajaram
from the above account.

PW.203-P. M. Krishnamoorthy was working as a Revenue
Officer in Chennai Corporation. He was acquainted with
handwriting of Damodaran. Damodaran has signed 1998
voters list. Ex.P1961 is the original copy of voters list of
1000 light constituency. In Ex.P1962, it is mentioned that
Jayalalitha is residing at Poes Garden, Chennai-86.
Sasikala, Ilavarasi, Bhaskaran and Sudhakaran and other
eight members were residing in the said address and all
these things are indicated in the voters list. They are
certified by M.A.Ismail, Voter Registration Officer and
Revenue Officer, Chennai Corporation. Enumerators used
go to the voters' house and gave card. When the
enumerators went to the house, the family members who
were not in the house, were verified with the ration card
and their names were registered in the voters card. The
voters list was printed on the basis of the card prepared by
the Enumerating Officers. He did not see the enumeration
card. He did not know who had given the information to
the Enumerator in No.36, Poes Garden house.

PW.204 - N.Ramnath was the Assistant Manager in "Spic
Pharma", Guindy, Chennai. He knows the Executive
Director, Finance - K.K.Mani. They had their own unit for
manufacturing penicillin in Cuddalore Sipcot Industrial
Estate. In December, 1994, they took the place for lease
from the Indo Doha Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals
Company adjacent to above mentioned Cuddalore unit.
They took it on lease for three years. They have paid
Rs.45,00,000/- as an advance and Rs.7,50,000/- as a
monthly rent. The lease agreement was executed between
the Indo Doha Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Company
and Sipcot. Ex.P512 is the lease agreement. Till March
1996, they have paid the rent every month. They were
paid by way of crossed account payee cheques. A total
sum of Rs.1,22,40,000/- was paid inclusive of advances
and monthly rent after Tax Deducted at Source (TDS).

PW.205 - Krishnasamy was working as a Technical
Personal Assistant for Administrative Officer, Ooty PWD.
On 14.3.1997, P.K.Natarajan - Executive Engineer,
Rammanoharan - Assistant Engineer, Selvaraj - Junior
Engineer Electrical went to assess the incomplete building
in Kodanadu Tea Estate. After their inspection, they have
submitted the assessment report and above mentioned
Engineers signed the Ex.P1964 - report. They have
received the letter from the Chief Engineer Madras to ask
them to inspect the place and assessed the same.
Alongwith them, Anti-corruption Inspector - Karunakaran
was also present. When they went to assess, the
Agricultural Engineer - Gopalan has accompanied them.
Mr.Chandran - Assistant Regional Engineer, High Ways
was also present. They inspected the above mentioned
place from 10.30 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. The Estate Division
Officer - Kuppuswamy was also present with them. At the
time of their inspection, the building was constructed upto
the basement. They have taken the detail and elaborate
measurements. From his experience, he can say that the
above building would have constructed one or two years
prior to their inspection. Rs.7,48,905/- is the amount
spent for consideration upto the basement. To find this
value, they have considered the price list of PWD for the
year 1995-96. On that, Inspector Karunakaran gave him
request to assess the pipes found there. On 15.3.1997
from 10.30 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. the Agricultural Engineer -
Gopalan, Assistant Engineer, High Ways - Shanumuga
Sundaram, himself, P.K.Natarajan and Ravi Manoharan
have inspected the pipes. In that place, one portion was
named as Fan Guard Division and another portion was
named as Ward Pakkam. High Density PVC Pipes were laid
there. Water sprinklers had been fixed there as well.
Ex.P1965 is the report. As per this report, Rs.5,80,315/-
was the value of the pipes.
During the cross-examination, he states that he has
prepared the notes of the proceedings and they have
destroyed the same. The structure could have been
constructed two or three weeks prior to their inspection.
They did not enquire about the quality of the pipeline and
price. They did not ask the receipt for the purchase of
pipelines. They did not dig and see the pipelines for
assessment. They did not prepare the notes of proceedings
for the pipeline assessment.
During the re-examination, question was put to him
that whether the chief-examination is correct or cross-
examination is correct?
For that, he states that chief-examination is correct.

PW.206 - S. Abdul Jaffar was working as a Manager,
Ruby Builders Private Limited, which is placed at basement
shop of No.20, Jems Court, Khadar Nivas Khan Road, Door
No.14, Chennai-6. They are tenants in the above
mentioned address. This premises was owned by the
Holidays Spot Pvt. Ltd. During February, 1992, this place
was sold to Sasi Enterprises. From then onwards, they
gave monthly rent to Sasi Enterprises. At the first
instance, they gave Rs.25,000/- as advance. They have
given monthly rent through cheques to Sasi Enterprises.
From February, 1992 to March, 1996, they have given a
total sum of Rs.2,62,200/- by way of rent of Sasi
Enterprises. They gave rent of April, 1996 in May, 1996.
Rs.4,000/- was the monthly rent in February, 1992.
Rs.4,600/- was the monthly rent from April, 1992 to
March, 1995. Rs.5,300/- was the monthly rent from April,
1995 to March, 1996.
During the cross-examination, he states that the
rental agreement and advance receipts have not been
produced.

PW.207 - K. Velusamy was working as a Senior Manager
in Canara Bank, Anna Nagar Branch, Chennai. In their
branch, Bank Current Account No.1689 was opened in the
name of Mahasubbu Lakshmi Kalyana Mantapa. Ex.P1996
is the certified copy of the account ledger copy. This
account can be operated by anyone of the partners of that
Mantap i.e. Sudhakaran, Ilavarasi, Srithala Devi. On
30.4.1996, this account's amount was Rs.3,17,475.64
paise.
During the cross-examination, he states that the
account found in Ex.P1996 was opened on 27.8.1993. The
details of transactions from 27.8.1993 to 31.12.1996 are
mentioned. The cash collected everyday from Mantap was
remitted in the Bank daily.

PW.208 - Gregory Kagoo was working as Chief Manager
in the Canara Bank, Kellis Branch, Chennai. Selvi
Jayalalitha had a Current Account No.38671 in his Bank.
Ex.P975 is the copy of the ledger account. This account
has been transferred to Canara Bank, Mylapore Branch.
Sasikala opened Savings Bank Account No.38746 in
Canara Bank, Kellis Branch. On 30.4.1996, this account
had Rs.17,118.98 paise.
During the cross-examination, he states that at the
first page of Ex.P975, credits and debits amounting to
Rs.2,53,953/- have been mentioned for the year 1998-99.
Ex.P977 at page No.4, it is mentioned that credits and
debits of Rs.11,28,251/- have been caused-out.

PW.209-Manickavasagam was working as Branch Manager
of Indian Bank, Abirampuram Branch, Chennai. He issued
the certified true copies of the Bank register, for the bank
accounts mentioned below:
Ex.P.1022- Jaya Publications Enterprises OMDL
Account Register Copy.
Ex.P.1011-In the name of Thirumati. V.
Gunabooshani N.K. No.1173- Bank Register True Copy.
Ex.P.1106-Jaya Finance Pvt. Ltd. NK No.1171
Register Copy.
Ex.P.1109-Tmt. J Ilavarasi NK No.1171 Register
Copy.
Ex.P1111- In the name of V.N. Sudhakaran CA
No.1068 Register Copy.
Ex.P1117- In the name of Fresh Mushrooms NK
NO.1071 Register Copy.
Ex.P1136-J.J. Leasing and Maintenance NK No.1059
Register Copy.
Ex.P.1138-In the name of J. Vivek Se.Ka.No.4110
Register Copy.
Ex.P.1160- On J. Real Estate N.K. No.1050 Register
Copy.
Ex.P.1170 J.S. Housing Development N.K. No.1062
Register Copy.
Ex.P.1189- Green Farm House NK No.1058 Register
Copy.
Ex.P.1207-J. Farm House N.K. No.1054 Register
Copy.
Ex.P.1226-Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd. NK No.1053
Register copy.
Ex.P.1248- Jaya Contractors and Builders NK
No.1049 Register copy.
Ex.P.1255- Sasi Enterprise NK No.Register Copy.
Ex.P.1344-Ram Raj Agro Mills Ltd. OCC No.1143
Register copy.
Ex.P.1354-Ramraj Agro Mills Ltd., OCC No.19
Register Copy.
As per Ex.P.1974, on 28.3.1995, Rs.22 Lakhs was
credited to NK No.1146 by draft clearing on 7.4.95. Rs.4
Laksh was credited to this account on clearance. On
28.4.1995 Rs.25 Lakhs had been debited from this account
vide cheque issued to Tmt. N. Sasikala. As per Ex.P. 1980,
on 28.3.1995 Rs. 22 Lakhs was credited through clearing.
On 7.4.1995, Rs.4 Lakhs was credited through clearance.
On 28.4.1995, Rs.25 Lakhs was given to Tmt. N. Sasikala
through cheque and the same was debited. As per
Ex.P.1986, on 7.4.1995 Rs.22 Lakhs was credited to this
account through clearance and on 7.4.1995, Rs.4 Lakhs
was credited. On 28.4.1995, Rs.25 Lakhs was debited by
cheque to Tmt. Sasikala. On 29.4.1995 Rs.5 Lakhs was
given to V.N. Sudhakaran by cheque. On 16.9.1995,
Rs.99,000/- was drawn through self cheque. As per
Ex.P.1998, on 28.3.1995, Rs.22 Lakhs was credited
through clearance. On 7.4.1995, Rs.4 Lakhs was credited
through clearance on 28.4.1995. Rs.25 Lakhs was given to
Tmt. N. Sasikala through Cheque. As per Ex.P.2016, on
28.3.1995, Rs.22 Lakhs credited through clearance. On
28.4.1995, Rs.25 Lakhs had been given to Tmt. N.
Sasikala through cheque and the same was debited. On
16.6.1995, through self cheque Rs.99,000/- was
withdrawn on 1.11.1995.

During the cross-examination, he states that the
enterprises where the 4th accused is a partner have started
accounts in Indian Bank, Abiramapuram Branch. In
Ex.P.1107, 1360, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1364, 1365, 1366,
1367, 1368 and 1369 the address to the post the accused
is indicated as No.7, East Coast Road, Neelankarai,
Chennai. In their bank, the accounts were opened for 10
and 11 partnership firms. Before starting accounts for such
firms, they obtain the partnership documents and kept in
their bank. It is not possible to say who is the active
partner and who is the sleeping partner on the basis of the
application. He does not know whether the 3rd accused
obtained Rs.5 Lakhs loan from the amount received from
Bharani Beach Resort. He does not remember on whose
request Ex.P.1974 was issued. Generally nobody puts the
date and he did not issue Ex.P.1369 to anybody. Four
account entries differ in Ex.P.1974. The true copy of the
un-indexed Lakshmi Construction Ledge folio 1140 has
been initiated by Thiru Janardhana Rao. He did not sign as
Manager in Ex.P.1981. There is difference in account of
Ex.P.1998 and the un-indexed Sea Enclave ledger folio
1161. There is difference in the account copy of Ex.P.2010
and the un-indexed Namasivaya Housing Development
ledger folio 1155. There is difference in the account copy
of Ex.P.2016 and the un-indexed Sakthi Construction ledge
folio 1149. There is difference in account copy of
Ex.P.2022 and the un-indexedoceanic construction ledger
folio 1167. There is difference in account copy of
Ex.P.2028 and the un-indexed Green Garden Apartment
ledger folio 1170. He does not personally anything
regarding the account in Ex.P.1106. He does not know
personally anything account disputes. He issued
Ex.P.1160. No date is mentioned below his signature. He
issued certified copy of Ex.P.1255. Date is not put below
his signature. While issuing the document copies, there is
no practice of putting date below certification in the bank.
He denies the suggestion put to him that dates were not
mentioned and issued copy in order to help the Police.
This witness was also re-examined. During the re-
examination he states that there is no variation regarding
the accounts of Exs.P.1974, 1980, 1986, 1988, 2004,
2010, 2016, 2022 and 2028 and the un-indexed
documents.
During the cross-examination he states that the
above mentioned indexed documents and the un-indexed
were issued only on the request of the investigation
officer.

PW.210 - V. Srinivasan was working as Deputy
Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle 1(1). During
1994, he worked as an Assistant Commissioner, Income
Tax, Film Circle, Chennai-34. On 20.11.1992, Accused
No.1, #36, Poes Garden, Chennai-86, filed the income tax
returns for the assessment year 1991-1992 in the income
tax office. Ex.P.2030 is the assessment order. As per the
returns filed by accused No.1, income was shown as
Rs.4,48,660/-. She has shown this income under the
following three heads:
Rs.71,304/- income from house
Rs.26,316/- as a loss in business
Rs.4,03,668/- income from other sources.
Assessment year 1991-92 means from 1.4.1990 to
31.3.1991. He has assessed and passed for Rs.80,65,250/-
Rs.9 Lakhs from agricultural income, that Rs.76,304/-
income from the house and no income from the business.
Income from other sources, cash of Rs.29 Lakhs,
investment in Silver articles Rs.46,52,200/- (Silver articles
700 Kilograms). Dividend and interest Rs.4,36,746/-. He
assessed like this and passed the order. From other
sources, he assessed a total of Rs.79,89,946/-. In the
Natyakala Nikethan, Chennai, balance sheet in her capital
account, Rs.29 Lakhs was shown as credit. As per the
assessment year 90-91, 31.03.1990 Selvi Jayalalitha has
shown Rs.30,21,450/- as the value of silver vessels.
In the assessment year 1991-92, property tax
return, Rs.70,61,400/- was shown as the value of the
Silver articles upto 31.3.1991. Among them, ten persons
presented the affidavits that they had given the gifts in the
assessment year 1991-92. He called those 10 persons and
enquired. But they told him that those gifts were given to
them by different people to be given to Selvi Jayalalitha
and they cannot identify the givers. As the assessee could
not reveal the names of the persons, who had given the
gift, the income tax department did not accept the
explanation. Rs.2,38,930/- was the tax to be paid by her
without interest. Moreover, for the late filing of returns
and for not paying the tax in advance as interest is
Rs.1,62,213/-. Adding the interest as total of sum of
Rs.3,78,065/- had to be paid by her as tax. This tax was
paid on 20.11.1992 along with the challan she filed the
returns. As per his assessment, the balance to be paid was
Rs.86,34,866/-.
During the cross-examination, he states that
generally the political leaders would be given momentous
and gifts when they participated in public meeting and
programmer. He knows that Selvi Jayalalitha has
participated in many programmes as a political leader and
a party leader. Nobody would use the gold-plated silver
shields and swords for daily use. He calculated
Rs.80,65,250/- as the taxable income of Selvi Jayalalitha
for the year from 1.4.1990 to 31.3.1991. Moreover, he
decided Rs.79,89,946/- as the income from the other
sources for that year. The decision he took about the gifts
were confirmed in the first appeal. He does not know if in
the second appeal filed against his order, whether his
order was dismissed by the Tribunal. The organization by
name Natyakala Nikethan has shown Rs.29 Lakhs as credit
in its Balance Sheet and he has agreed for the same.
Except the gifts, he agreed on the income shown by Selvi
Jayalalitha from other sources.
PW.211 - P.N. Venkatesan was working as Director in
Rayapettah Benefit Fund Company. On 18.10.1995, his
company gave a housing loan of Rs.35 lakhs to the 4th
accused. Interest levied on that loan is 24%.

PW.212 - A.V. Subbarao was a film producer since 1952.
He has produced 9 films, in all those films Selvi Jayalalitha
acted as heroin. The mother of 1st accused also acted in 2
or 3 films which he has produced. He and Auditor
N.C.Sunderrajan are witnesses to the Will. After 2 days
from the date of execution, she has expired.
During the cross-examination, he has stated that the
properties bequeathed by Mrs. Sandhya Ammal to her
daughter, the 1st accused.

PW.213-M. Seetharaman was working as a Deputy
Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-II. In June
1994, the files regarding Selvi Jayalalitha's income tax was
transferred. He undertook tax assessment work for the
below mentioned assessment years.
516-500grams gold was more than the said amount.
The total value for that is Rs.8,66,061/-. The amount of
jewellery shown was more than the previous year 1986-
87. He sought for an explanation as to how these jewels
had come. For that the 1st accused replied that those were
received as gifts. When he enquired thoroughly, he came
to know that the reasons given were unacceptable. He has
given an elaborate explanation for that in the income tax
assessment order. Ex.P.2126 is the income tax assessment
order. Mr. Sreenivasan passed the assessment order for
the assessment year 1991-92. Rs.26,850/- as her income
and Rs.4,80,000/- as agricultural income. Ex.P.2124 is the
property tax returns for the year 1987-88. Ex.P.2125 is
the valuation report. When reviewed the Ex.P.2125, the
value of Jewels was more than the said amount. During
1988-89 an assessment order was passed. On 13.11.1992,
they received Ex.P.2127 in his office. It should have been
filed before 31.7.1988. In Ex.P.2127, 1st accused has
shown Rs.38,910/- as income for that year and
Rs.5,50,000/- as agricultural income and Rs.1173/- was
paid as advance tax (TDS), Rs.9,282/- was paid as self
assessment tax. Ex.P.2128 is the property tax returns filed
by the 1st accused for the year 1988-89. Ex.P.2129 is the
appraiser's certificate. Rs.19,57,138/- is the total value of
the jewellery. He sought for an explanation for that from
the 1st accused. She gave explanation that they were
gifted to her. This explanation was not accepted.
He passed the assessment order of the 1st accused
for the year 1989-90. On 16.11.1992, the 1st accused filed
the return as per Ex.P2131. In this, Rs.25,200/- was
shown as income for that year and Rs.7,00,000/- as
agricultural income by the 1st accused. When he reviewed,
the weight and value and jewels mentioned this year were
found to be more than the previous year. That is 220.09
carats diamonds 4312.300 grams gold jewels found were
from the previous year. The total value for this is
Rs.30,08,818/-. Explanation sought was submitted and
not accepted. Rs.98,85,300/- was decided as the total
property value of the 1st accused, and Rs.37,454/- was
charged as property tax. Returns were filed for the
assessment year 1990-91 as per Ex.P.2135/-. Rs.8 Lakhs
was shown as agricultural income, Rs.9598/- was paid as
TDS. Rs.61,459/- as self-assessment tax. He reviewed the
property tax returns filed for this year by her. When he
reviewed, 412-20 carat diamonds, 8385.350 grams gold
jewels, valuing Rs.59,87,007/- were found to be more than
the previous year. Apart from this, 550 Kilograms of silver
things, valuing Rs.35,54,650/- were shown more than the
previous year. Besides, 31 lakhs was deposited in Bank of
Madura, Annanagar Branch. He asked the 1st accused
about the sources for this income, for that she told that all
were gifted by persons. Explanation submitted was not
accepted. The total of the above mentioned three items is
Rs.1,26,32,657/-. On 2.3.1995, he passed the assessment
order for this year as per Ex.P.2137. He charged
Rs.1,88,98,074/- as income tax with interest. For the year
1990-91, he passed the property tax assessment order on
24.2.1995 as per Ex.P.2138. Rs.2,35,36,109/- was
calculated as the total property value and for that it was
ordered that Rs.90,690/- had to be paid as tax. On
23.11.1992, the 1st accused filed the income tax returns
for the assessment year 1992-93. The first accused as
shown as Rs.6,64,528/- as income for the year.
Rs.9,50,000/- was shown as agricultural income and
Rs.53,574/- was paid as TDS by the 1st accused for that
year. Rs.19,45,012/- was received as gift and deposited in
the bank. For the year 1991-92, it was shown to the
account of Natya Kala Nikethan, Chennai. Finally, he took
Rs.2,18,37,350/- as her taxable income. For that year, he
charged Rs.2,12,66,106/- as tax with interest. Ex.P.2140
is the assessment order issued by him. He only passed the
assessment order as per Ex.P.2142. Rs.6,53,98,088/- was
the total value of her property for that year. The notice
was sent on 18.1.1994 as per
Section 142(1)
Income Tax
Act. Time was extended to file return upto 31.12.1995. On
9.2.1996, the exparte order was passed. Rs.1,10,000/-
was taken as house income. Rs.37 Lakhs income from
interest. Rs.66,39,153/- from the bank accounts from
1.4.1992 to 31.3.1993. A total of Rs.1,04,49,153/- was
calculated and he assessed the tax as Rs.96,98,801/-
along with interest. The accused did not file the returns for
the year 1993-94. Hence, notice was sent. Time sought for
by her was given upto 11.10.1995. Returns were not filed.
Exparte order was issued on 15.2.1996 as per Ex.P.2144.
As per this, he imposed Rs.4,71,775/- as tax.

PW.214 - A.R.Rahman is a music composer. She
requested him to perform a musical programme for her
son Mr.Sudhakaran's marriage on 6.9.1995. Mr. Bhaskaran
along with his wife came to his house and gave the
invitation with 2 silk sarees, silver kumkum casket and
silver sandal bowl in a silver plate. During the
investigation, he handed over all there articles to the
officers of the Prevention of Corruption Department.
Prabhu, s/o Shivaji Ganesan also invited him personally for
this marriage. As per that on 6.9.1995, he performed the
musical programme for one hour. About 25 to 30 persons
were in the orchestra. He did not charge any amount for
that programme.
During the cross-examination, he states that he
considered it as a privilege to conduct the music
programme. He did not ask for remuneration.

PW.215 - A. Selvaraj was working as Income Tax Director
(Exemptions) in Chennai from August, 1995 to June, 1998.
He only heard the appeals preferred against the orders
passed by some Income Tax Officers. Selvi Jayalalitha
preferred appeal, against the orders passed by
Seetharaman and some Income Tax Officers relating to
1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1992-93 and also
orders passed by Srinivasan for 1991-92. He clubbed all
the Income Tax assessment orders into one as all the
points raised in the appeal were of similar in point of law
and in facts. The appellants were represented by
N.A.Palkivala, Senior Counsel and Rajasehkar, Auditor.
After hearing and perusing the documents, he passed a
common order on 25.3.96.
Ex.P2145 is the certified copy of that order. Selvi
Jayalalitha has appealed against the orders passed by
some officers in relation to the property tax returns.
Ex.P2146 is the common order passed. In that order, he
partly allowed the appeal and partly confirmed the orders
passed by his subordinate officers. He has discussed the
reasons for passing that order. On 28.2.1997, he has
passed an order preferred against the order relating to the
assessment for the year 1992-93. That order is Ex.P2147,
in that order, he has partly allowed the appeal and also he
has discussed the reasons in detail. The property tax
assessment order for the year 1993-94 also came up
before him. He has passed an order on 16.6.1997.
Ex.P2148 is that order.
During the cross-examination, he states that
Rs.9,29,080/- is calculated as the income for the year
1987-88 for the first accused.
For the year 1988-89 Rs. 21,29,240/-
For the year 1989-90 Rs. 30,97,075/-
For the year 1990-91 Rs.1,27,59,040/-
For the year 1991-92 Rs. 80,85,250/-
For the year 1992-93 Rs.2,18,37,350/-

From 1987-88 to 1992-93, the gifts and present
were categorized into four and they were shown in 3rd
page of Ex.P2145.
Those gifts, present, gold, silver ware, Demand
Drafts are in the category of cash.
In 1991-92 Rs.29 Lakhs as income
In 1992-93 Rs.15 Lakhs as income
Under the gold jewels category,
In 1987-88 Rs. 8,66,061/-
In 1988-89 Rs.19,57,138/-
In 1989-90 Rs.30,08,818/-
In 1990-91 Rs.59,78,607/-
Under the silver ware category
In 1990-91 Rs.35,54,650/-
In 1991-92 Rs.46,52,200/-
Under the category of Demand Drafts
In 1990-91 Rs. 31,00,000/-
In 1992-93 Rs.1,95,50,012/-

Accused No.1 showed the above mentioned details in
property wealth tax returns for the year 1987-88, the first
accused showed Rs.30,66,000/- and filed the wealth tax
returns on 13.11.1992.

In 1988-89 wealth Rs.53,86,200/-
In 1989-90 wealth Rs.80,17,700/-
In 1990-91 wealth Rs.1,88,75,400/-
In 1991-92 wealth Rs.2,60,55,750/-
In 1992-93 wealth Rs.5,81,94,815/-
and the returns, connected with those were filed on
11.11.1992, 13.11.1992, 16.11.1992, 20.11.1992,
20.11.1992 and 23.11.1992 respectively. Like that the
forms of income tax returns for the years,
1987-88 is filed on 13.11.1992
1988-89 is filed on 13.11.1992
1989-90 is filed on 16.11.1992
1990-91 is filed on 20.11.1992
1991-92 is filed on 21.11.1992
1992-93 is filed on 23.11.1992
He did not accept the claims which came under the
category of gifts and presents. Gifts and presents do not
incur the income tax. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant
has preferred appeal before the Appellate Tribunal-II. In
appeal, his order has been reversed on several occasions,
it has also been confirmed. Gift articles are not shown in
the Income Tax returns format, it is only shown in the
wealth tax format.
Question: Accused No.1 voluntarily disclosed the
gifts, cash and jewels to the Income Tax department.
What do you say about this?
Ans: Particular category's source has to be shown
differently for income tax and wealth tax. In both cases of
taxes, if a person suppressed about a particular category,
later it can be detected and income tax can be assessed
and the same time, it cannot be detected. If the particular
category is shown in the returns for the same regularized
then Income Tax cannot be levied. So the category which
is shown in wealth tax returns cannot be taken as the
category shown in the income tax returns. Those
categories are shown in the wealth tax returns, but those
categories were taken as the income of the first accused. I
am a Tamil conscious Tamilian. I have been watching the
political situations in Tamil Nadu. I know very well that
the Birthday's of leaders of political parties will be
celebrated by the party workers very enthusiastically. I
know that the party workers will stand in a very big long
queue to give presents to the leaders. The first accused
has disclosed in the income tax returns for the closing year
ended 31.3.1990 that she received from 21 persons, Rs.31
lakhs through D.D.
He has mentioned in his order that the gifts and the
donations received by the politicians during their birthdays
should be considered as their income only. He has set-
aside the imposition of Rs.12.25 lakhs as tax on Jaya
Publication for every year he has given deductions of
Rs.7,000/- on the tax on interest.
He has condoned the small errors of late filing of the
returns and reduced the considerable amount interest
levied as penalty.

PW.216 - Nazimuddin was working as District Registrar in
Kallakurichy from 1.7.1998. From 8.1.1990 to
10.12.1992, he worked as a District Registrar (Admn.) in
Tanjoore.
Exs.P2149 to 2151 are the certified copies of the
Deed Nos.140/90, 141/90, 142/90. Sale consideration
was Rs.1,39,000/-. The schedule property is a house and
a vacant site in survey Nol.1091 in Black High School
Road, Mahanombu Savadi, Tanjoor. As per this document,
the purchaser of the property is N.Sasikala. In Ex.P2150 -
sale deed, sale amount is mentioned as Rs.1,02,000/-.
The schedule property is about 4500 sq.ft. of vacant site
and 600 sq.ft. vacant and a dilapidated house in that in
T.S.No.1091 on Black High School Road, Tanjore. This
property was purchased by N.Sasikala. In Ex.P2051 - sale
deed, sale amount was mentioned as Rs.1,79,400/-. The
schedule property is 8970 sq.ft. of vacant site in survey
No.1091 in Mahanombu Savady, Tanjoor.
During the cross-examination, he states that the
documents from Exs.P2149 to 2151 were presented before
the Sub-Registrar office on 31.3.1990 for registration.

PW.217 -C. Govindarajulu was working as Joint Sub-
Registrar and retired on 31.12.1990. From October 1987
to December 1990, he worked as Joint Sub-Registrar No.1
in Tanjoore. After the registration of Exs.P2149 to 2151,
he issued the Registration Certificate for the original
documents.
During the cross-examination, he states that he
registered the original documents of Exs.P2149, 2150 and
2151.

PW.218 - V. N. Soma Sundaram himself and his wife
Muthulakshmi sold the land. They have received the sale
amount mentioned in Exs.P2149 to 2151 (Rs.1,39,000/-,
Rs.1,02,000/- and Rs.1,79,400/- respectively). During
1985, Ganapathy took Rs.3 lakhs as loan from Selvaraj in
connection with contract work.

PW.219- R.S. Usman Khan has taken shop No.9 for rent.
He took the shop for rent since 1.2.1996. For this, he has
paid Rs.45,000/- as advance. Monthly rent of Rs.4,500/-.
All these were paid through cheques only. Sasi Enterprises'
representative came and gave cheque to him.
During the cross-examination, he states that he
handed over the copy of the agreement to the police. He
did not obtain the receipt for having paid an advance of
Rs.45,000/-. Since he has paid through cheques, he did
not receive the receipts.

PW.220-Thiruthuva Raj has deposed that he has been
working in the Public Works Department for the last 22
years. He was working as an Assistant Executive Engineer
(Elecl.). His qualification was B.E.(Elecl.). He has good
experience in valuing the electrical fittings in the buildings.
He was working as an Assistant Executive Engineer in
Electrical Sub-Division, Chepauk in 1996. At that time,
Thiru Thangavelu worked as the Chief Engineer (buildings).
Thiru. Souranam worked as the Executive Engineer. As per
the order issued by his higher officer Thangavelu. He went
to value the electrical devices in four buildings with Thiru.
Sournam and Jayapal in charge in the year 1996. He went
for the said work 25.10.1996 and 30.10.1996 to assess
the value of electrical devices in the Siruthavoor Farm
house at Alathur Village in Thirupoor, Mahabalipuram
Road, he was assisted by Assistant Engineer Selvaraj.
Thiru Jayapal, Inspector of Anti- Corruption and Prevention
Department was with them. After valuing the electrical
devices in the said house, they prepared a report. Selvaraj
and he has signed the report and they handed it over to
Thiru.Sournan. In the last page of the Ex.P.661, their
report was attached. According to that, they have assessed
the value to be Rs.17,50,000/- on 30.10.1996 they went
to Paiyanur bungalow in Chengalpet Dist. led by Sournam.
Along with the help of Selvaraj, they valued the electrical
devices in the above said bungalow and prepared a report.
They gave the report to Sournam and in that, Selvaraj and
he has affixed their signatures. That report was attached in
the last page of Ex.P.662. According to that, they
assessed the value to be Rs.31,13,184/-. Later they went
to Namadu MGR Anjaneya Printers in Ekkattuthagal for
04.11.1996 to 06.11.1996 to value the electrical devices
headed by Sournam and assisted by Selvaraj. After
valuing, they prepared a report and given to Sournam. At
that time, the Inspector Thiru. Sanmuganandan was with
them. Selvaraj and he took note of the electrical fittings.
In the assessment report, Selvaraj and he has affixed their
signatures. That report was attached in the last page of
the Ex.P.663. According to that, the value amount is
Rs.47,75,000/-. Apart from the above said three buildings,
they valued the electrical devices in the Ex. Chief Minister
Selvi Jayalalitha's house in Poes Garden, Chennai. Thiru
Selvaraj was with him for assistance. They did the
investigation led by Thiru Jayapal, the Executive Engineer
on 08.12.1996 and 9.12.1996. After verification, they
prepared a report. They took note of all the electrical
devices in the said house. The part by part details of the
buildings were given in his report. The details are like this
important old building, camp office, dish antenna room and
new multi-storey building. For all these, he gave separate
details. In that report, Selvaraj and he affixed their
signatures. The report given by them is Ex.P.2152.
According to these two generators (a lift with the capacity
to draw six persons) air conditioners, refrigerators,
televisions, decorative electrical lamps were there in the
house. Apart from this, what all the articles were there in
the house. He has mentioned in his report in detail.
According to his report, the total electrical devices value in
the said house is Rs.1,05,25,000/-.

During the cross-examination, he has deposed that
to inspect the property at Ciruthavur, the Asst. Executive
Engineer, Sivalingam, an Assistant Engineer (Civil) were
went to the said place. For assistance, Selvaraj, the Asst.
Engineer came along with him. The Vigilance Engineer did
not come to Ciruthavur. His assistant and he inspected
the electrical devices from morning 9 am to evening 5 pm.
While they were inspecting, they took notes now and then.
They both inspected only the electrical devices related
articles. They did not go into the building related articles.
They took notes extending for about 20 to 25 pages in
Ciruthavur. They did not ask the proprietor of the place to
send an Electrician to help them. He can sign in English
and Tamil. The Chief Engineer (Buildings) Thangavelu
appointed him for this job. He has a written order to this
effect. On that day, he did on duty work. He does not
remember the date on which Thangavelu ordered him to
take up this work in writing. The order copy came in
confidential post. At that time, Thiru. Thangavelu and he
were in service at Chepakkam office. It was the Chief
Engineer who appointed Thiru. Selvaraj to assist him. He
prepared the report of the Chiruthavur work and gave it to
Thiru. Sournam, Thiru. Sournam worked as Executive
Engineer (Buildings). When they took notes of the related
electrical devices. Thiru Sournam was with them. But he
did not take any notes and he did not prepare any reports
for this work, from the police department. Thiru. Jayapal
was with them. They do not know if he is present in the
court now. The police made no enquiries with him, nor did
they take any oral deposition for him. In Ex.P.661 and
page 51 the work he has done was mentioned only in one
line. It has shown that electrical devices amount is
Rs.17,50,000/-. In that, the Asst. Executive Engineer
(Civil) Thiru. Sivalingam, an Engineer, whose name is not
known. Superintendent Engineer Thangaraj and he
havesigned. "X21 is the page of the Ex.P.661. "X21 is not
the work report in detail. The details of our inspection was
not attached in "X21". They have prepared a detailed
report on the basis on our 25 pages brief notes. He gave
the report to Sournam. It is not correct to say that
Selvaraj and he did not go to Ciruthavoor, that they did
not inspect anything and so they did not attach a detailed
report in X21 and that the amount mentioned in the X21 is
not the actual amount. In Ex.P.663 in the 7th page, it is
mentioned in a line that the value of electrical devices is
Rs.47,75,000/-. It bearshis signature, but his detailed
report was not attached. "X22 is the 7th page of Ex.P.663.
He cannot give the details of the electrical devices in that
place using X22. Using X22, at present, he cannot state
how the above mentioned amount was arrived at. He
cannot use X21 at present moment to state what electrical
devices were there and how the total sum mentioned in it
was arrived at.

In the Cross-examination, he has deposed that
Ciruthavur is the first place that he inspected. They
inspected Ciruthavur for 2 or 3 days. Four or five days
later they went to Paiyanur for inspecting buildings. They
inspect the Paiyanur building in a day. The Paiyanur
buildings are in one campus. After that, they went to
Anjaneya press for inspection. Four days after the
inspection of Paiyanur buildings, they proceeded to
Anjaneya buildings. They inspected Anjaneya Press i.e. in
the 1st week of December 1996, they inspected the Poes
Garden building. They inspected the Poes Garden building
for two days. Their team consisted of himself, his
Assistant, Assistant Engineer Thiru Selvaraj, Administrative
Engineer Thiru. Swarnam, Assistant Engineer (Civil), Thiru.
Senthil Kumar who inspected the Ciruthavur, Paiyanur and
Anjaneya press buildings. The team that inspected the
Poes Garden consisted of him, Asst. Engineer Selvaraj,
Administrative Engineer Thiru. Jayapal, Asst. Executive
Engineer. The timings they inspected the buildings every
day were from 9 am to 11 am, 11.30 am to 1.30 pm, 2.30
pm to 5 pm. All of them did the work as one team. In their
team, Thiru. Swarnam is the higher officer. He assessed
the electrical points and wrote a note. The Asst. Engineer
Selvaraj prepared another note. The abstract/estimation
could be prepared on the basis of the notes after four or
five days. In X21 six members have signed, but nobody
mentioned the date. The police did not ask for X21 on
which the date was not mentioned. Generally the date,
signature and seal are always mentioned on any report by
a higher authority like him. The dates were not mentioned
in Exs.P661, P662, P663 and P2152. They did not submit
to the police the notes that they have made. The police too
did not ask for it. He did not attach the notes in his report
and send it. When they assessed those buildings, they
assessed it on the basis of the prevailing market rate for
that month. In Ex.P.662 they did not write the details of
how old the electrical devices/fittings were. In Ex.P.662.
he entered the date and his signature. The date is
28.11.1996. Every year there is expenditure incurred over
wear and tear for the devices. The wear and tear costs will
be deducted in the total assessment. Every year there will
be a depreciation value of 5 to 10 percent and the same
will be deducted. He was saying this out of his experience.
The value can be indicated accurately only after referring
to the department guidelines. In his report, he did not
attach the cost of then prevalent market rates. For every
article, he knew the difference between the wholesale rate
and retail rate. In his report, he did not specify whether he
has mentioned the wholesale rate or the retail rate of the
articles. But, he took only the retail rate. There is a lot of
difference in retail rates from place to place and shop to
shop. He has mentioned the brands for the fittings and
brochures of electrical instruments for some items and
note mentioned for some items. According to the brands,
the rates differ. In his report, he mentioned the brand
names for 36 items out of 118 items. He did not take any
quotations in writing from, Peverica company. He went
there directly and find out the rates by oral enquiry. In his
report, he did not mention how old the generator was. He
was aware of the existence of the Tamil Nadu Statistics
Department. That office is on D.M.S. Campus in Tenampet.
He did not go over there and get the statistical index. The
police did not force him to submit the report in a specified.
He has mentioned his assessment in his report after an
oral enquiry. He saw the diesel pump set prepared the
estimations for very urgent works. Regarding electricity,
the PWD guidelines have been revised twice after
independence. The last time it was renewed from 1980 to
1985. He has not written the details of the items
pertaining either to the PWD schedule rates or the shop
rates in his report. As far as Paiyanur buildings were
concerned, the electricity supply was in working condition
when he was inspected but he did not mention this in his
report. He enquired about 6 to 7 shops about chandeliers
in Tenampet. He had drawn out a picture of the chandelier
when he made a note and so he took this to Tenampet
shops while making enquiries. The names of the shops are
Crystalite and Modern Height, but he does not remember
the names of other shops. He did not take down the notes
of the chandeliers in writing from the shops. He enquired
generally the rate of the chandeliers differ from year to
year. There is always a discount for bulk purchase. After
observing all things, he gave his assessment in his report,
but he has not mentioned in writing that.
He has observed all these things and then made his
report. Regarding the electrical devices, Selvaraj and he
went to the above said shops and enquired about the
rates. The rates of the electrical devices were enquired by
him in different places like Tenampet, Parrys corner,
Ambattur. There is traveling allowance for traveling over 8
kms. He did not claim any TA for this work. He used the
government jeep to go to all these places. When he went
to shops to enquire, he used his own motor bike. Before
1985, he claimed the TA (when I was in Trichy). The price
of the two Ton "O" general air-conditioner was Rs.60,000/-
(2 Ton multi spirit split into two). A person connected with
the house was there when he inspected the Paiyanur
house. He does not remember his name. The details are
not mentioned in his report. In Ex.P.662 he has marked in
a pencil on page 83 a word 'actual'. It indicates that the
condition of the articles there. When he inspected the
place, he did not take the signature of the person from the
house, who was present in the house stating that he
should be present on the premises till they finish their
investigation. The Ex.P.662 was typed by the Typist
Vijayakumar. He has signed it and handed it over to
Swarnan.

The signature of the Inspector Jayapal was not taken
in Ex.P.662, the details for Thiru. Jayapal's presence at the
time of the assessment was not mentioned in the
assessment in Ex.P.662. Thiru. Jayapal did not sign in his
note taken by him. At present, the estimation is not
attached to Ex.P.661. When they inspected the Ciruthavur
buildings, Thiru. Jayapal was with them. His signature is
not there in Ex.P.661. The estimation for the electrical
devices was not attached to Ex.P.663. He gave the
estimation report to Thiru. Swarnam, but it was not
attached now to the Ex.P.663. The inspector Thiru.
Shanmuga Nadar was present, but his signature is not
there in Ex.P.663, when they inspected the Poes Garden
house, an advocate of the owner of the house was present,
but he does not remember his name. At that time, along
with Thiru. Nallamma Naidu, Superintendent and two
police inspectors were there. But, he has also not
remembered their names. At that time, Thiru. Swarnam
did not come along with them. Thiru. Jayapal
Administrative Engineer was with them. Nothing was given
in writing to inspect the building. They inspected the
building as the higher authorities and Thiru. Jayapal asked
them to do. Thiru. Jayapal is the Administrative Engineer.
About a month and ten days after the investigation of the
Ciruthavur building, they inspected the Poes Garden
building for two days. Both the days the advocate of the
building owner was there. From what the others were
saying gathered that the advocate was a close associate
of the owner. He did not come to know this directly from
the advocate. They did not receive any Court order to go
and inspect these buildings. He knew that the Poes Garden
house belongs to Ex.Chief Minister Selvi Jayalalitha. Thiru
Jayapal orally told him and took him to the house. He did
not get anything in writing. The Chief Engineer has the
power to appoint and take necessary actions. The Chief
Engineer did not give him any order in writing to inspect
the Poes Garden. After inspecting the Poes Garden, he did
not send any detailed letter to the Chief Engineer. When
they inspected the Poes Garden, the Electrician Velagiri
was with them. This information was not mentioned in
Ex.P.2152. In Ex.P.2152 they have not taken his
signature. He inspected the Poes Garden house on the
words of his higher authority Thiru. Jayapal. When he
inspected the building many police men were there i.e., six
to seven police men. They inspected the building from 9
am to 11 am, 11.30 am to 1.30 pm (forenoon), 2.30 pm to
5 pm (afternoon). For his assistance, the Assistant
Engineer Thiru. Selvaraj was with him. In the house, there
was an office room and in the report he has mentioned
that room as camp office. When they inspected, the 1st
accused was not the Chief Minister. Already, he has taken
care of the Poes Garden house, that is why he knew that is
the camp office. He has taken care of the electrical devices
in the said house. That Poes Garden house comes under
the jurisdiction of the Asst. Executive Engineer. So, he has
taken care of the electrical devices in that house. That
house is a private property and it is not a government
property. In his office, he was having the documents for
the maintenance but at present it is not with him. He has
taken care of the electrical devices in that house in 1995-
96. The house comes in their office jurisdiction and
because of this, he was saying that he has taken care of
that house. He does not know that how many years old
that house is? At that time, the Door No.31-A, Poes
Garden house was under construction. He does not know
that when they did the wiring for the old house. The value
of the electrical devices goes with the brand of the
electrical devices and usage of the articles. He has got his
B.E. Degree in Electrical and Electronics in the year 1973
in PSG college of Technology, Kovai. In his Degree
certificate, it is written as B.E. Electrical and Electronics.
The witness is telling that in his Degree certificate, it has
been written as only B.E. Electrical and not as Electronics.
The Television and Antenna are the Electronics related
devices like diesel engines are related to mechanical side.
During his inspection, he has marked 129 items in No.36,
Poes Garden House. He did not go to the enquiry to the
house that the house belonged. For this, he did not verify
the registered document. In his report, Ex.P.2152, he did
not mention in whose name the electrical connections is
there in No.36 Poes Garden house. In his estimate, his
report Ex.P.2152 was not attached. In Ex.P.2152 the date
of his inspection was not mentioned. It is not mentioned in
Ex.P.2152 who all did the inspection and who were all
present at the time of the inspection. Out of 129 items, for
30 items only they have mentioned the brand name. The
128 and 129 items were pump sets. For that, the brand
name was not mentioned. The item 108 is diesel
generator. For that, he put Rs.6,55,000/- as the value
rate, but he did not mention the brand name. For that also
he did not mention the brand name. When they are taking
the note, they won't value the value the articles. After
verifying the rates in the market, they have prepared the
value assessment list, they put the present market rate for
the items 1 to 129 when they prepared the report i.e.
November 1996, market rate value. They did not verify the
rates with the rates in writing. For the electrical devices
the wear and tear will 5 to 10 percent for a year in their
Public Works Department. After a particular period if they
deduct the wear and tear value for the electrical devices, it
will come to zero (0). The discount for the wear and tear
for the electrical devices were not given to any articles in
their above mentioned reports. For each electrical device if
he calculate the years of the usage and give the discount
for the wear and tear, his valuation will differ. He does not
know that the discounting for the wear and tear for the
electrical devices in the income-tax department. He does
not know that the discounting for the wear and tear of the
electrical devices in property tax department. When they
prepared the above mentioned four reports, they did not
keep any public with them. When they inspect, they did
not take any member of the public with them. He does not
know that there is any government approved value for
valuing the electrical devices and Surveyors. He does not
know that whether his higher officers sent his four reports
to any private valuers for verification. To the best of his
knowledge, he did not send it.

PW-220 was recalled and re-examined by the learned
Special Public Prosecutor and questions were posed as
under:
Question: In your reports have you mentioned
which of the electrical devices are in working condition and
which are out of order?
Answer: I valued only those devices which were
in working condition.
The item Nos.130 to 204 electrical devices was
mentioned under the heading "New Multi Stage Building".
The address of the building was not mentioned.

Question: Did you come to know who is the owner
of the building after seeing the documents?

Answer: After seeing the documents of the
electrical service connection. I came to know who the
owner of the new building was. Apart from the service
connection document, I did not see any other document to
know the owner of the new buildings. In my value report
Ex.P.2152, I did not write who is the owner of the new
building. The Public Works Department does not give the
electrical connections. Only the Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board can give electrical connections. The service
connection documents will be with the Electricity Board. I
did not go the Electricity Board and I did not give any
permission letter to go through the documents. In
Ex.P.2152 I did not mention the number of the service
connections. In Ex.P.2152 I mentioned the brand names
for 17 items. Out of items 130 to 204, item 185 was
valued at Rs.2,98,900/-. I did not mention the parts of
the items, but mentioned it as one set. I did not mention
with whom I made enquiries to arrive at this value. The
item 187 is not an Indian make. Too arrive at the value of
the item. I did not mention in any report with whom I
made enquiries. The Ex.P.2152 was divided into 4 parts
and then valued. In the Ex.P.2152, I did not mention with
whom I enquired for the prices of the items, which are
mentioned in 4 parts. For items 273 to prepare a plan, to
make the design estimate and the supervision expenses, I
calculate 9 per cent and put the amount at Rs.8,69,045/-,
but I did not see any plan and the estimated design. I do
not know who supervised the said one. The calculation as
9 per cent that I mentioned is a figure accepted by the
PWD. I have added this amount on the basis of the idea
that this normally occurs when a building is constructed.
In Ex.P.662 the above mentioned 9 per cent amount was
added. The amount was also added on the same opinion
(in page 2 for the 24th item, I added the building value).
The value is Rs.10,39,633/-. In Ex.P.663, the amount 9
per cent was not added. In Ex.P.661, the amount of per
cent was not added. In Ex.P.2152 age of items 130 to 204
has not been mentioned. For these, I did not mention the
wear and tear also. In the camp office heading, the items
were 205 to 260. Out of this, I mentioned the brand
names only for 15 items. I did not mention in my report
with whom I enquired for the price details. I did not
mention how old the items are and the wear and tear also.
For the rates of the articles, I took the price value in
November and December 1996 into account. Of the items
261 to 272 in the 4th group, I gave the brand names for 4
items only. Dish antenna belongs to the group of
electronic items. The above items come under electrical
and electronic good. I know about the electronic devices.
I did not take any electronics experts with me, but in the
Public Works Department there are Engineers qualified in
Electronics and upto the level of Asst. Executive Engineers.
To know the prices of the electronic articles. It is in
Ex.P.661, 661, 663 and 2152. I did not take the help of
our Public Works Department Electronics Engineers for the
prices of the items in four documents. I have taken into
account the PWD rates in November and December, 1996.
I have not mentioned in my report about the places I
visited and the people I met and find out the prices of the
items. I have not mentioned how old the items are in the
four documents. In the same way I have not given the
wear and tear discount yearly. I have not written
specifically if all the items in the four documents were in
working condition, but all are in working condition only.
For all the electrical devices, the prices vary according to
the brands. In the same way labour charges vary for the
lifting of the items. The police did not enquire me. I did
not valuing because my team leader instructed me to do
so. I do not know why he asked me, I am in the habit or
reading Tamil news papers. I came to know through the
news papers about the disproportionate wealth acquired by
the 1st accused, the Ex.Chief Minister. When we were
doing the valuation, the police were with us. Then only I
did know that they were with us for this case. I know the
reports were needed for this case only. In Ex.P.2152 the
date of submission of the report is not mentioned. The
Ex.P.2152 report was given to Thiru.Jayapal, the
Administrative Engineer in December, 1996. In Ex.P.2152
my Asst.Engineer Selvaraj and I signed on the report. In
that, there is no signature of my higher officer Thiru.Jaypal
or other signatures. But, the Ex.P. 661 to 663 documents
have my higher officers signature the Ex.P.2152 was filed
in the Court in 2000. I gave Ex.P.2152 to Jayapal. I do
not know what he did with it. It is not correct to say that I
did not prepare the Ex.P.2152 and to say that the police
prepared the report for this case and took my signature is
not correct. Likewise, it is not correct to say that Ex.P.611
to 663 documents were prepared by the police and that
they took my signature. It is not correct to say that I have
quoted inflated prices for the items mentioned in 4
documents. It is not correct to say that the items and
devices I have mentioned are not there. It is not correct
to say that I have not gone to the markets and not
enquired the rates. It is not correct to say that I have
gone by the instructions of the police to help the present
government, as I am a government servant and giving
evidence against Jayalalitha. It is not correct to say that
the electrical devices prices were high in that report as
instructed by the police and it is wrong to say that I put
only my signature.
In the cross-examination, he has deposed that above
his post is the post of the Electrical Engineer, above him is
the Electrical Department Superintending Engineer post
and above him the Building and Electrical Department,
Chief Engineer's post. There are rules in the Tamil Nadu
Public Works Department to govern our functioning. A
valuation of Rs.15,000/- and above has to be valued by
the Electrical Engineer on his higher official. When he
assessed the Electrical devices regarding this case
property, he was not holding the post of an Electrical
Engineer. At that time, Selvaraj worked under him. On
that date, Parthasarathy was the Electrical Engineer. He
did not take part in the valuation process of the electrical
devices of the buildings regarding the case. In Ex.P.661,
the people also have signed on it are Swarnam,
Shivalingam, Shankar and Senthil Kumar. All of whom are
the Civil Division Engineers. He does not know that what
work those Civil Engineers did at Sinthavur Farm house.
Like that, the above Civil Engineers are not aware the work
they did in the house regarding electrical devices. When
they inspected the electrical devices, they prepared a
proceedings note which runs into five or six pages. In
each pages, there are 10 to 15 entries. The proceedings
note is not in the Court. He gave it Sournam. After that
he did not see that anywhere. Only with the help of the
proceedings notes he can give the correct total amount.
After verifying to that only he can tell what all devices he
inspected. He does not remember the total amount. He
does not know that who is the owner of the Ciruthavur
house is which they inspected and when they inspected the
house, the house owner or people on his behalf were not
present. There are many bungalows in Ciruthavur of which
one they inspected is not mentioned in X21. Using the
grand total they cannot give the details of the electrical
devices and the prices. The details of the time duration
they spent in the Ciruthavur Farm are not mentioned in
Ex.P.661. Their department value guideline was not
attached in Ex.P.661 to Ex.P.662 and Ex.P.21 and 22.
Regarding the electrical devices in the Ciruthavur Farm
house, they prepared a model plan, but they did not attach
it to, Ex.P.661. In Ex.P.662 the date of the inspection was
not mentioned specifically. Those who signed on X21 did
not mention the dates below their signatures. The dates
were not mentioned on pages of Ex.P.661. They do not
know on which date Ex.P.661 was sent to the police. For
Ex.P.662 the rate preparing in November, 1996 have been
taken into account. It is not mentioned in Ex.P.662 when
those electrical devices were fixed. It is not possible that
these devices may have been fixed a few weeks before
they inspected. They did not mention in their report
whether the wires and devices were of good standard or
not. They have noted the fans and tube lights as 'fixtures'.
Those details were not there in their report. If they had
mentioned in their report about the standard and the
number of the devices, they would have know the correct
prices. In their report, they took the market value for the
articles while preparing the report. It was not prepared
according to the PWD rates. He has not taken in writing
from shop keepers about the market rates if the articles
existing then. They did not mention the break up figures
of the electrical devices. They did not go to the Tamil
Nadu Electricity Board to find out about the electrical
connections of the building they inspected. At that time of
their inspection apart from Inspector Jayapal, his higher
officers were not present there. They inspected the
Paiyanur bungalow for about one to one-and-a-half hours.
We prepared a proceedings Note, model plan of the
electrical devices in the Paiyanur bungalow. He gave them
to the Executive Engineer Swarnam. That model plan and
the proceedings note were not submitted in the Court.
The value mentioned in the report is only a rough
estimation. They cannot assess the electronic items. In
Ex.P.663 on page No.5, the registered electrical device is
X25. In X22 and X25, the break up figures of the electrical
devices are not mentioned. The details of how the
mentioned amount was calculated were also not there. For
Ex.P.663 they prepared a proceeding note and model plan,
but that was not attached in Ex.P.663. The one time value
in Ex.P.661, the answers he has given tallied with
Ex.P.663. The detailed report they prepared was not
attracted with Ex.P.663. When they signed on Ex.P.663,
they did not ask what happened to the report they
prepared. The electrical devices in "Namadu MGR" and
Anjaneya Printers were valued for about one to one and-a-
half-hours. In that valuation, apart from Selvaraj, nobody
was involved in the proceedings. At that time of the
valuation, apart from the Inspector, no other individual
was present there.

In Ex.P.2152 the model plan, break up figures, price
list (our department and the market rate), electrical
devices price, transportation charges, electrician labour
charges and wages of the assistants were not mentioned.
In Ex.P.2152 for the first term a comparative tabular chart
was prepared, but it was not attached to Ex.P.2152.
Documentary evidence for the prices of items in Ex.P.2152
was not attached. They valued the electrical devices in
three types of buildings. Out of that, electrical device in
the old building may have been fixed for 10 years before
they inspected. In the new buildings, the electrical devices
may have been fixed two weeks before their inspection. In
Ex.P.2152 they did not mention the details like the gauge
of electrical wires, how many electrical wires in one slot
and how many coil wires, the standard and types. When
they come to know the correct price value of the above
mentioned articles, then only they can assess correctly.
All the items places in Ex.P.2152 were prepared in a
tabular chart, but it was not attached with Ex.P.2152. If it
had been attached, it would have been possible to do the
correct assessment. The assessment value amount is
approximate value. Out of our experience, they did the
assessment. For the price of the articles, they did not take
any proof from the shop keepers. The items in Exs.P2152,
66, 70, 71, 72, 73, 77 to 82, 185, 191, 254, 255, 256,
259, 260, 261, 261 and 264 were the electrical devices.
In their department there is a Radio Engineer to value the
electronics items, but he did not come along with them.
Since our team members do not have any training to value
the electronic devices, they cannot do the assessment.
For the item 58 they did not mention the manufacturing
company's name and capacity in the Ex.P.2152.
Depending upon the company and capacity, the price will
be fixed. The details will be applicable to item 61 also.
The items from 126 to 129 were made out of stone and it
is a decorative item. So, they do not have the qualification
to assess those items. They have to do more assessment
for the glass ware fixed in the items 150 to 156. The
value is less for the electrical devices. The AC units (items
70 to 72) were old, yet they did the assessment. The
value of the AC machines goes down if used regularly. In
Ex.P.2152 the valued AC unit they have not taken into
consideration of the wear and tear of the machine. So,
they did not mention the prices of it items 107 and 108
how old are they and its wear and tear value account was
not mentioned in Ex.P.2152. The items 186 to 196 in
Ex.P.2152 they did not mention how old they were and the
market price. They did not submit any proof to show what
exactly the marked rate of those items was. In Ex.P.2152
they did not mention for the item 204 about the cable
drawn from where to where and the details of the work
done. In his report, he did not mention why the cable was
used. Items 223, 224 and 225 are chandeliers. He has
not attached any proof about the market prices in
Ex.P.2152. The answer given by him to the item 58 is
applicable to item 235 also. The camp office mentioned in
their report is the Chief Minister's office. In the camp
office, the electrical devices, electrical articles and
electricity connection were taken by the Tamil Nadu
Government expenditure. The items from 261 to 270 were
the electronic items. They do not know the assess these
items. If the owner of the building directly purchased the
electrical devices and the articles and fixed them, there is
a chance that the price will be 30 per cent to 40 per cent
less than in their assessment. For the item 272, no
document was attached as proof. If the building owner
directly took care to fix the electrical devices for the item
273, no expenditures will be incurred. At the time of their
assessment, other than the police and us, nobody was
there. At the time of our assessment, they did not enquire
with the building owners or the people who belonged
there.

PW.221 - R. Kesava Ramanujam was working as the
Deputy Inspector General of Registration in Central
Chennai. He speaks about unregistered document, Trust
document, General Power of Attorney document,
documents registered with other states, 90 documents
registered by Rajagopalan, District Registrar, North
Chennai. He speaks about the following documents:
Exs.P79, P75, P77, P78, P324, P46, P96, P97, P98,
P99, P100, P101, P102, P68, P330, P339, P345, P350,
P357, P909, P161, P291, P148, P363, P366, P377, P388,
P396, P408, P419, P431, P513, P443, P450, P456, P143,
P144, P145, P146, P772, P165, P172, P147, P174, P180,
P467, P472, P477, P488, P184, P190, P153, P154, P155,
P156, P197 are undervalued documents. In case of
Ex.P105, the purchaser's name, addresses were not filled-
up. Lateron, they were included in the document.

Exs.P248, P135, P136, P207, P214, P221, P910, 911
are undervalued documents.
Exs.P104, P912, P913.
Ex.P30 is the power of attorney, Exs.P140 and P142
are the sale agreements.
The Government has incurred the loss of stamp duty
and registration charges.
During the cross-examination, he states that there is
a District Committee to verify the document registration.
If the Inspection Committee finds out the defect, they
should tell the same to the Sub-Registrar and he should
refer it. The Sub-Registrar has right to find out the
defects. He did not go personally to find out whether less
stamp duty was collected on the document. He does not
know the condition of the enquiry under Section 47A (1).
After completion of the enquiry under Section 47A (1),
they would know whether the document is defect in stamp
duty. Once in three months officials would come from the
Head Officer for internal audit. Their work is to verify
whether the stamp duty and assessment are correct.
Nallamma Naidu gave 165 documents to examine.
Ex.P190 is the original copy. It is not mentioned as
certified copy. The Officer has signed in that without date.
The date seal is there without date. Their Department did
not take action for the less stamp duty. Generally in
villages, they would not calculate land by square feet. In
villages' guidelines will be in acre. He did not see
guidelines register, when he inspected Uthukadu village.
It is not mentioned in the document whether it is a wet
land or dry land. In Ex.P30, it is mentioned that it is
V.N.Sudhakaran's Green Farm House, Chennai. The sale
agreement was written in favour of Green Farm House.
There is no need to register the unregistered sale
agreement. Sudhakar was the partner of Green Farm
House. In Ex.P31, it is mentioned that Sudhakaran is an
agent. He cannot take Exs.P32 and 42 as sale documents
because the stamp duty was not paid and it was not
registered. Exs.P513 and P515 are not taken or doubled
value because this property is not arable land.

PW.222 - C. Jayaraman has deposed that from 4.6.1990
to 9.1.1992, he worked as a Joint Sub-Registrar, in Adyar
Sub-Registrar Office. The original Deed of Document
No.4640/1990 was permitted for registration by his
predecessor Sub-Registrar V.S. Doreswamy. Ex.P168 sale
deed was sold by S.K.R. Vishwanathan. The purchasers
are partners of Jaya Publication namely, Jayalalitha and M.
Sasikala. Consideration amount is Rs.3 lakhs.
Rs.15,34,500/- is the market value of the schedule
property of this document.

During cross examination, he states that he did not
send this document for market value assessment.

PW.223 - Somasekara Reddy has deposed that he was
working as a Manager in Kalyani Constructions in
Wellington Plaza, Anna Salai, Chennai. The Wellington
Plaza has ground floor and three more floors. All are
offices and shops. M. Srinivasa Reddy is the Proprietor of
Wellington Plaza who is also head of the Kalyani
Constructions. In Wellington Plaza shop Nos. 24 and 25 in
first floor were let on rent on Super Duper TV from
1.2.1995 till March or April 1998. As an advance, he
received ten months rent i.e., Rs.64,000/-. Agreement
was made on 1.2.1995. As a Director of Super Duper TV
Company, Sri. V.N. Sudhakaran has signed the
Agreement. For the above mentioned two shops, monthly
rent was Rs.6,400/- and this amount was given through
cheques every month.
During his cross examination, he states copy of the
agreement has not been submitted to the Court. He did
not submit the receipt for the advance paid.

PW.224 -K.N. Thiyagaraja Swamyhas deposed that
during 1995, for Sri. V.N. Sudhakaran's marriage in
Chennai, he cooked exclusively for VIPs. Sasikala and her
sister-in-law Tmt. Santhana Lakshmi and others who
appointed him for the cooking. They told him to meet
Ramkumar. He supervised the preparation of afternoon
meal. For each leaf, he prepared three sweets including
carrot halwa, pachadi, two poriyals, chips, vada,
happalam, payasam, rice, sambar, rasam and curds.
Based on his fifty years experience and prices then
prevailed, he estimated that Rs.55 to Rs.60/- was spent to
each meal. About 2,000 VIPs consumed food. The VIP
Dining place could seat about 350 to 400 people at a time.
20 persons worked under him. They gave him Rs.11,850/-
as salary. A person from Shivaji Films gave the above
mentioned cash. For 200 persons, six sacs rice was used.
120 to 150 kgs. Of vegetables were used. He does not
know anything about cool drinks, juice and thambulam
items.
During cross examination, he states the bride is the
actor Shivaji Ganeshan's granddaughter. He received
payment in cash from Shivaji Films.

PW.225 -S. Ravichandran has deposed that he was
working as Cashier in Indian Bank at Abhirampuram
Branch at Chennai. His duties include counting cash paid
by customers, checking entry, sealing the challan with date
for the money received, initialing the challan. He speaks
about transaction pertaining to Sri. Nageshwar Rao.

PW.226 - N. Thiyagarajan has deposed that he was
working as Assistant Commissioner, Revenue
Administration, Chepakam, Chennai. From 24.3.1994 to
20.4.1995, he served as a Tahsildar, Uthukottai Taluk.
Ex.P660 was sent to him through District Collector and
Sub-Collector. The application was given by M/s. Meadow
Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd. It was addressed to District
Collector. In that application, a requisition was made to
allot 220.20 acres land in Adilivakkam and Velagapuram
villages in Uthukottai District to establish papaya farm. In
the application Ex.P660, the District Collector has written a
note in English to examine and initiate necessary proposals
at an early date.
During cross examination, he states even though
proper steps have been taken, since the allotment was not
made, the allotment order has been cancelled.
PW.227 - N. Sundararajan has deposed that from July
1996 till March 1998, he worked as Assistant
Commissioner of Income Tax. He examined the income
tax related files of Selvi.Jayalalitha and Thirumathi N.
Sasikala from 1987-88 assessment year till 1996-97
financial year. The income tax return for the assessment
year 1987-88 should have been submitted on or before
31.7.1987. But, Selvi Jayalalitha filed returns for the year
1987-88 assessment year only on 3.12.1992. In this her
self assessment tax of Selvi Jayalalitha she has remitted
Rs.2,675/- on 13.11.1992. Subsequently, after the
assessment order, she remitted Rs.1,11,672/- on
28.8.1995. In the month of March 1998, this assessment
order was reopened. He reopened it after obtaining
permission from the Income Tax Commissioner. It was
reopened with a reason that she has not shown the
agricultural income.

Selvi Jayalalitha filed income tax return for the year
1988-89. It should have been filed before 31.7.1988. On
13.11.1992 as self assessment tax Selvi Jayalalitha
remitted Rs.9,282/-. The Deputy Commissioner passed
the assessment order for this year on 28.8.1995. Selvi
Jayalalitha remitted Rs.5,54,200/- as tax. Later on, this
file was reopened by him because of non disclosure of
agricultural income.

On 16.11.1992, income tax return for the
assessment year 1989-90 was filed. It should have been
filed before 31.8.1989. On 13.11.1992, she remitted
Rs.9,905/- as self assessment tax. On 28.8.1995, Selvi
Jayalalitha remitted Rs.8,08,256/- towards tax.

On 20.11.1992, Selvi Jayalalitha filed income tax
return for the assessment year 1990-91. This return
should have been filed within 31.8.1990. Self assessment
tax of Rs.61,549/- was remitted on 21.11.1992. Deputy
Commissioner passed the assessment order through
Ex.P2137.
Date Tax paid
20.11.1995 Rs.5 lakhs,
8.12.1995 Rs.5 lakhs,
18.11.1996 Rs.5 lakhs
28.2.1996 Rs.5 lakhs
19.3.1996 Rs.5 lakhs
16.4.1996 Rs.2,24,780/-
24.4.1996 Rs.5 lakhs
24.5.1996 Rs.4 lakhs

This file was reopened for non disclosure of agricultural
income.

On 20.11.1992 Selvi Jayalalitha filed income tax for
the assessment year 1991-92. Deputy Commissioner
passed the assessment order vide Ex.P.2030. ON
21.11.1992 Selvi Jayalalitha remitted Rs.3,78,065/-
including interest as self assessment tax. After passing
assessment, she remitted Rs.10 lakhs on 1.10.1994, Rs.5
lakhs on 26.12.1994 and Rs.7 lakhs on 21.1.1995. This
file was also reopened for non disclosure of agricultural
income.

On 23.11.1992, Selvi Jayalalitha filed income tax
return for the assessment year 1992-93. Self assessment
tax of Rs.3,89,145/- on 23.11.1992. Ex.2140 assessment
order was passed. In March 1998, for the same reason, he
reopened it and on 28.3.2000, passed the reassessment
order.

Selvi Jayalalitha did not file income tax return for the
financial year 1993-94. Last date for filing was 31.8.1993.
Therefore, on 9.2.1996, Deputy Commissioner passed ex
parte order on 15.12.1992. Selvi Jayalalitha remitted
Rs.5,23,757/- as advance tax. On 13.3.1996, Selvi
Jayalalitha remitted Rs.15,442/- as self assessment tax, on
16.3.1993 remitted Rs.3,49,171/- as advance tax.
On 23.9.1996 Selvi Jayalalitha filed income tax
return for the financial year 1994-95. Ex.P217 is the
assessment order. Selvi Jayalalitha remitted Rs.87,158/-
on 15.9.1993 as advance tax. On 15.12.1993, she
remitted Rs.87,158/- and on 15.3.1994 she remitted
Rs.1,16,212/-.

On 8.11.1996, Selvi Jayalalitha filed income tax
returns for the financial year 1995-96. She remitted
Rs.87,158/- on 13.9.1994 and Rs.87,158/- on 12.12.1994
as advance tax. Assessment order was passed on
30.3.1999.
On 18.11.1996, she filed income tax return for the
financial year 1996-97. She remitted Rs.87,158/- on
13.9.1996 and Rs.87,158/- on 8.12.1996 and Rs.7.05
lakhs on 14.3.1996 as advance tax. On 30.3.1999, tax
assessment order was passed.

For the financial year 1988-89, she filed income tax
return on 30.11.1992. On 13.12.1992, she remitted
Rs.89,618/- as self assessment tax. Ex.P2178 is the tax
assessment order.

On 16.12.1992, she filed property tax return for the
year 1989-90. On 13.11.1992, she remitted Rs.2,68,475/-
as self assessment tax. On 20.11.1992, she filed property
tax return for the year 1990-91. She remitted
Rs.6,02,757/- as self assessment tax and remitted
Rs.90,619/- as regular tax on 9.6.1995.

Property tax returns for the year 1991-92, 1992-93,
1993-94 was filed.

On 23.2.1993, Tmt. N. Sasikala filed income tax
return filed income tax return for the year 1985-86.
Similarly, on 23.2.1993, she filed return for the year 1986-
87. For the year 1987-88, she filed income tax return on
23.2.1993. She also filed income tax return for the
assessment year 1988-89 on 23.2.1993. Assessment
order was passed.
Ex.P2189 is receipt for having remitted
Rs.2,42,241/- in the bank including interest. Ex.2191 is
income tax return filed by second Accused on 23.2.1993.
Similarly, she filed income tax return for the year
1992-93 on 23.2.1993 and for the year 1993-94 on
8.2.1996, she paid Rs.7,62,151/- as tax.

On 25.2.1993, she filed property tax return for the
year 1985-86. For the year 1987-88, she filed property
tax return. She paid tax Rs.7,486/-.

She filed income tax return for the year 1988-89 on
25.2.1993. For the assessment year 1989-90, she filed
income tax return on 25.2.1993. Ex.P2206 is property tax
return filed by 2nd Accused on 25.2.1993 for the
assessment year 1990-91. For the year 1991-92, she filed
property tax return on 26.2.1993. Ex.2210 is the property
tax return filed by the second accused on 26.2.1993 for
the assessment year 1992-93.

During his cross examination, he states he don't
know whether Sri. P. Chidambaram, Finance Minister was
opposed to Selvi Jayalalitha. To reopen the case, he took
superior officer's permission.

He reopened the income tax return since agricultural
income was not furnished.

PW.228 - R. Rajasekaran has deposed that he worked as
Chartered Accountant. For the assessment years 1987-88
to 1992-93 he filed income tax and property tax returns on
different dates of November 1992. Selvi Jayalalitha has
not maintained any account with regard to agricultural
income. Ex.P2176 is the income tax returns of Selvi
Jayalalitha for the assessment year 1996-97. Sri. V.N.
Sudhakaran's marriage was also mentioned in this return.
He verified the bank account statements, proof of
purchasing the documents, details income of rent,
estimated income of Vinod Video Vision Company.

The property tax return for the year 1985-86 was
submitted by him on behalf of Tmt. Sasikala on 25.2.1993.
Property tax returns of 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-
90, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 were submitted on
different dates of the year 1993. He has affixed his
signature to the mahazar when the search of the accused
house and office were conducted. Ex.P2218 is the mahazar
relating to search in respect of house No.57,
Subramanyapuram Street, Abhirampuram, Chennai.

PW.229 - M. Devaraj speaks about the Government Order
issued by the Governor of Tamilnadu granting permission
to prosecute Selvi Jayalalitha for the offence punishable

u/s.120-B
of Indian Penal Code r/w.
Section 13
[2] and
13[1][e] of
Prevention of Corruption Act
.

PW.230- N.V. Balaji has deposed that he was working as
a Chartered Accountant from 1988, he knows A2, A3 and
A4. He was one of the witness who has affixed his
signature to the form to register i.e., firm Vigneshwara
Builders. He has attested his signature to the Ex.P747
application for registration of Lakshmi Constructions. He
has attested his signature to Ex.749 application for
registration of Gopal Promoters. He has attested his
signature to Ex.741 application for registration of Shakti
Constructions. He has attested his signature to Ex.753
application for registration of Namashivaya Housing
Development. He has attested his signature to Ex.755,
757, 759, 761, 763 which are applications for registration.
He has attested his signature to the partnership concern of
Sudhakaran Sasikala Ilavarasi and Lex Properties
Development Private Limited.
Tmt. J. Ilavarasi in the income tax returns for the
years 1994-95 and 1995-96 mentioning that there was no
business in these years. Ex.P2225 is a file concerning the
partnership deed. There is also photocopy of lease deed
referred to Plot No.1, Multi Street, VGP Garden Beach
Housing, Cholalinganagar, Chennai. Item No.14 in
Ex.P2224 is file relating to Shakti Constructions. Item
No.15 in Ex.P2224 is file relating to Navashakti Contractors
and Builders. Ex.P2224 Item No.16 is file relating to
Green Garden Apartments. Ex.P2224 item No.17 is file
relating to Oceanic Constructions. Ex.P2224 item No.18 is
the file related to Lakshmi Constructions. Ex.P2224 item
No.19 is the file related to Gopal Promoters. Ex.P2224 item
No.20 is the file related to Sea Enclave. Ex.P2224 item
No.21 is the file related to Vigneshwara Builders. Ex.P2224
item No.22 is the file related to Ayyappa Properties
Development. Ex.P2224 item No.23, item No.1 pertains to
Namashivaya Housing Development and J.J. Leasing and
Maintenance respectively. Ex.P2224 item No.3, Ex.P2224
item No.4, Ex.P2224 item No.5 and item No.8 pertains to
Green Farm House, Fresh Mushrooms, Jaya Publications
and Marble Marvels respectively. He was appointed by
Ramaraj Agro Mills to do the secretarial work to change
the partnership deed. They made arrangement to change
the share certificate to Tmt. N. Sasikala and Sri. V.N.
Sudhakaran and some more persons whose names were
mentioned by the concerned. Ex.P2224 item No.33 is the
file which contained application for change of share
certificate of Ramaraj Agro Mills Ltd.,. Ex.P2245 is the file.
Ex.P2224 item No.33 is the file containing Minutes of the
Directors of Ramaraj Agro Mills Ltd.
During cross examination, he states that Green Farm
House purchased a land in Vettuvankeni for Rs.3,63,120/-.
Green Farm House purchased a land of 37 cents for
Rs.1,24,540/- at Eenchampakkam and 16.75 cents for
Rs.2,70,200/- in Sholinganallur. J.S. Housing
Development purchased properties at Akkarai Village for
Rs.9,95,670/-. They took loan for Rs.7 lakhs from Indian
bank, Abhirampuram Branch and started construction. A1
had no connection with J.J. Leasing and Maintenance and
its activities. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 purchased shares from
four already developed companies. Lex Property
Development Pvt. Ltd., Meadow Agro Farm Pvt. Ltd.,
Riverway Agro Products Pvt. Ltd., and Signora Business
Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., were companies purchased from
Promoters cum Directors by the Accused Nos.3 and 4. Lex
Property Development Pvt. Ltd., purchased properties
namely, Door No.149, TTK Road, Chennai - 18 and Door
No.1, Palace road, Nungambakkam, Chennai. Value of the
property was shown as Rs.57,00,040/-. Balance Sheet
reveals company took loan of Rs.57,00,000/- from Kalyani
Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Then Accused No.3 and 5 got loan
from Indian Bank, Abhirampuram Branch, and purchased
property in Door No.150, TTK Road, Chennai - 18 in the
name of the company. They took a loan of Rs.83 lakhs for
the above mentioned bank. But, they purchased the
property only for Rs.59,28,050/-. On 15.3.1995, the
Indian Bank Abhirampuram Branch, as per the sanction
given by Central Office gave a loan of Rs.133 lakhs to Lex
Property Pvt. Ltd. Moreover, the above company
purchased property in Door No.30, V.O.C. Nagar,
Thanjavoor for Rs.19,03,088/- by overdraft amount from
Indian Bank, Abhirampuram Branch. J. Farm House got a
loan of Rs.50 lakhs on 17.10.1995 from Indian Bank,
Abhirampuram Branch. With this loan amount the
company purchased land of 1.29 acres in Eenchambakkam
for Rs.6,49,770/- and nine ground land in Chollinganallur
Village for Rs.2,86,441/-. If a person buys a share in the
company, he is only owner of the share and not the owner
of company's property. In addition to this, he is not
responsible for company's loans in future if he sells those
shares he is eligible only for profit or loss in the sale. The
Accused Nos. 3 and 4 purchased 100% share of Lex
Property Development Pvt. Ltd., for Rs.5,500/- and sold
them at the same rate. Through the Indian Bank,
Abhirampuram Branch, Central Office of Indian Bank
allowed the following loan amounts for the following
companies:
a. J. Real Estate on 7.4.95 - Rs. 25 lakhs
b. J.S. Housing Development on 7.4.95 - Rs.12.46
lakhs

c. Lex Property Development on 15.3.95 - Rs.133
lakhs

d. J. Farm House on 17.10.95 - Rs.50 lakhs

e. Kodanadu Tea Estate on 28.09.95 - Rs.375 lakhs

f. Maha Subbu Lakshmi Kalyana Mantapam on
10.11.94 - Rs.17.85 lakhs.

Apart from this Lex Property Development Ltd., has
obtained overdraft of Rs.19,03,088/- from the above Bank.
Maha Subbu Lakshmi Kalyana Mantapam obtained amount
on 10.9.94 Rs.17,85,274/- by way of overdraft. Anjaneya
Printers was registered under the
Indian Companies Act
on
14.7.93. At that time, the paid capital was Rs.1.50 lakhs.
Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were Directors of this company at
that time. Second Accused invested Rs.90,000/- and third
Accused invested Rs.60,000/-. From the beginning, the
company was carrying on printing work. Anjaneya Printers
earned Rs.9,89,690/- in the year 1993-94. Anjaneya
Printers earned in many ways like printing text books,
printing daily newspapers for outsiders, printing wall
posters, selling scrap. Anjaneya Printers has received
Rs.50,60,000/- through public investment. In 1994-95,
Anjaneya Printers did business for Rs.1,23,94,734/- by
wholesale, Rs.4,45,522/- by selling scrap material and
through other income Rs.61,855/-. Moreover, they got
Rs.18,60,000/- by share distribution, Rs.50 lakhs through
bank loans and Rs.43,18,818/- through overdraft facilities.
Through those 16 organizations, funds for the scheme
were received from Namathu MGR Magazine. Income of
Rs.1,05,000/- was received as rent. Anjaneya Printers
received Rs.51 lakhs from Jaya Publications and
Rs.15,90,608/- from Namathu MGR Account. Anjaneya
Printers received Rs.1,74,46,363/- as income for the year
1995-96 by sales and other categories. Moreover, they
got percentage income for the above mentioned amount
for the period from 1.4.96 to 30.4.96. Salary and
dividends were given to Directors of Anjaneya Printers.
Jaya Publications was started in 1998. It undertook
different publishing works. The main job of this concern
was to run Namathu MGR. Namathu MGR is the All India
AIADMK Parties authorized daily magazine. Namathu MGR
maintained a separate bank account. Jaya Publications also
maintained a separate bank account. A scheme was
created for contribution through it at least Rs.15,000/- or
Rs.18,000/- was received by Namathu MGR Magazine.
There were so many organizations set up for AIADMK.
MGR Youth wing, Jayalalitha Perani, Advocates' Wing,
Medical Wing, ladies Wing etc., are 16 organizations.
Through those 16 organizations funds for the scheme were
received from Namadhu MGR Magazine. By annual
budgetary fund Namadhu MGR received as under:
a. 1991-92 - Rs.82,14,000/-

b. 1992-93 - Rs.2,23,26,000/-

c. 1993-94 - Rs.2,07,75,000/-

d. 1994-95 - Rs.5,57,37,000/-

e. 1995-96 - Rs.3,53,37,000/-
Namadhu MGR received income as under:

In 1991-92 - Rs.64,56,373/- through sales and
printing, Rs.45,04,025/- through Advertisement,
Rs.9,54,973/- through some other categories.

They got income for the year 1992-93 as follows:

Sales and Printing - Rs.21,01,290/-
Advertisement - Rs.90,12,224/-
Other categories - Rs.7,69,505/-

They got income for the year 1993-94 as follows:

Rs.54,59,642/- through sales and printing and
income of Rs.1,05,000/- by way of rents. Rs.12,90,500/-
by way of rent. Rs.16,21,255/- through other categories.

Namadhu MGR Company in the year 1994-95
received Rs.2,81,00,333/- through sales, printing and
advertisement. Rs.15,87,310/- through rent,
Rs.3,00,000/- through rent on machines, Rs.14,97,940/-
through other categories.

They got income for the year 1995-96 as follows:

a. Through Sales, Printing and Advertisement -
Rs.2,50,28,552/-

b. Rent - Rs.15,47,832/-

c. Rent on machines - Rs.3,00,000/-

d. Other categories- Rs.15,02,310/-
Jaya Publications settled loan of Rs.1.50 Crores for
buying Tansi Property from the above mentioned income of
Namathu MGR.

For this case, while Nallamma Naidu in his office
examined him for many hours, he gave all the details
about the income from 1.4.91 to 30.3.96 of Jaya
Publications, Namathu MGR and Anjaneya Printers. Even
then, Nallamma Naidu has not shown income details of
Jaya Publications concern in this case. Namathu MGR has a
daily accredited to get Government Advertisement. He
showed all the details about the annual income of each and
every year of Namathu MGR and handed over all the
documents to him. Tmt. Sasikala administered daily and
banking activities of Jaya Publications. She was the
Administrative Director. Selvi Jayalalitha was a dormant
partner of Jaya Publications.

Vinod Video Vision was owned by Tmt. Sasikala.
That concern deals with equipments of television for rent
video covering, editing, advertisement, mixing, and
printing of video films. All the income and expenditure
accounts relating to this company were handed over by
him to Nallamma Naidu. He did not give
acknowledgement. Due to that reason, at present, he is
giving evidence by seeing remaining documents.

In 1993-94, Namathu MGR got Rs.21,11,017/- as
net income. In 1994-95, this concern got Rs.28,77,327/-
as net income. For the year 1995-96, this concern got
Rs.29,48,338/- as net income. Further, for the above said
income from 1.4.96 till 30.4.96 average income was
earned. Our company has taken care of income and
expenditure accounts of that company from 1993. The
concern paid income tax. The concern got Rs.23,62,140/-
as net income for the year 1994-95. That concern got
Rs.15,14,147/- as net income for the year 1995-96.
Nallamma Naidu seized ledgers, receipts and expenditure
account from him. In the affairs of Jaya Publications, Sasi
Publications, Namathu MGR, Anjaneya Publications, at any
time, neither Tamil Nadu Government nor Jayalalitha
interfered either directly or indirectly. Recovery cases
were filed against J.S. Housing Development, J. Farm
House, Kodanadu Tea Estate. They are liable to pay
Rs.5,32,30,274/- to the Indian Bank. Above mentioned
details of the loan were not mentioned in the enclosures.
Facts universal belongs to Tmt. Sasikala. She got Rs.5
lakhs through this concern. Ramraj Agro Mills got
Rs.65,63,653/- loan from S
IPC
OT and City Union Bank. As
an Auditor of the company which is involved in this case,
he handed over all the accounts maintained by them, hand
books, computer floppies to Nallamma Naidu when
investigated on several days for several hours. The
Accused Nos. 1 to 4 purchased properties from the income
of their own. From 1985, Sasikala paid income tax and
property tax. Ilavarasi also paid income tax and property
tax earlier to 1985.

During cross examination by Accused No.3, he has
stated Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd., was interested in
producing entertainment programme. According to that,
they would fix an instrument in one place and give cable
connection through operators. Each and every cable
operator has to pay Rs.5,000/- and join the scheme
created by Super Duper TV. Ramraj Agro Mills Pvt. Ltd.,
was a private limited. It is registered under the

Companies Act
. This company started in the year 1980.
Many Directors took charge of the Rice Mills at different
times. In 1994, when that concern sold the shares, the
Accused No.2 purchased 1,20,000 shares at the rate of
Rs.3/-, the Accused No.3 purchased 1,20,000 shares at
the rate of Rs.3/-. The cost of the construction made by
that company belongs only to that company and not to his
shareholders. Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd., paid
Rs.15,75,000/- to S
IPC
OT Company from the money which
it collected from the operators i.e., Rs.5,000/- each. The
amount shown as fixed deposit in the account of Super
Duper TV Pvt. Ltd., in the above said attachment list are
the amount so collected through the above said
applications. Recovery cases were pending against Maha
Subbulakshmi Kalyana Mantapa. A loan for
Rs.17,86,000/- was taken from Indian Bank,
Abhirampuram by Maha Subbulakshmi Kalyana Mantapa.

PW.231 - S. Kumar has deposed that Sri. V.N.
Sudhakaran is his employer. Since 1993, he is working as
Manager in Kalyana Mantapa. Rs.900/- was monthly salary
during 1993. They used to rent out the above Kalyana
Mantapa for functions type marriages, engagements and
receptions.
The profit after deducting expenses, profit was as follows:

Months Amount [Rs.]
August 1993 - Rs.57,419/-
September 1993 - Rs.27,587/-
October 1993 - Rs.30,580/-
November 1993 - Rs.27,103/-
January 1994 - Rs.52,085/-
February 1994 - Rs.61,418/-
March 1994 - Rs.49,450/-
April 1994 - Rs.29,436/-
May 1994 - Rs.44,231/-
June 1994 - Rs.38,373/-
July 1994 - 17,551/-
August 1994 - 31,310/-
September 1994 - 65,872/-
October 1994 - 16,794/-
November 1994 - 31,806/-
December 1994 - 17,228/-
January 1995 - 30,471/-
February 1995 - 50,017.10 paise
March 1995 - 56,409/-
April 1995 - 14,469/-
May 1995 - 80,241/-
June 1995 - 84,682/-
July 1995 - 2,550/-
August 1995 - 66,407/-
September 1995 - 55,414/-
October 1995 - 9,612/-
November 1995 - 57,497/-
December 1995 - 35,004/-
January 1996 - 43,577/-
February 1996 - 87,242/-
March 1996 - 1,20,055/-
April 1996 - 58,048/-

During cross examination of Accused No.3, Kalyana
Mantapa was rented out for conference, textile business,
exhibitions, cinema shootings, two or three small functions
will be held in a month, income through small functions
will be Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month.

PW.232 - Dr. Subramanian Swamy has deposed that he
was a President of Janatha Party. Before that, he was a
Member of Parliament for five times. During 1990-91, for
7 months, he was a Minister in the Central Ministry in
Commerce and Law Department. When Mr.Narashimarao
was the Prime Minister, he was the President for 2 years in
"GATT". It had ministerial status. He has received a
Doctorate in Economics from Horward University -
America. In Horward University, for about 10 years, he
worked both as a Junior Professor and then full time
Professor.
On 14.6.96, he presented a complaint against Ex.
Chief Minister Selvi Jayalalitha before City Civil Court,
Chennai. He gave this complaint for the property of Selvi
Jayalalitha, disproportionate of her Rs.1/- as monthly
income. This he came to know from the Parliament and
the complaint was lodged on the basis of the reply. He
gave some others name also in the complaint and asked
that their properties also should be included with the
properties of Selvi Jayalalitha. He has given the
documentary proof for that. In the above mentioned
complaint, he has mentioned Mrs.Sasikala her close
relatives in Paragraph-15. When he has lodged the
complaint Selvi Jayalalitha was not in power. So, he has
mentioned in the complaint that he does not need to get
permission for filing the case. As per the information he
has received, he has mentioned in the complaint the
properties of 1st accused on the basis of the complaint. His
sworn statement was recorded by the Court. That
complaint is registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
No.3238/1996. In that complaint, he has requested the
court to get more witnesses by further investigation. In
pursuance of
Section 202
of Cr.P.C., the Judge directed it
to be investigated. During this case investigation,
Mr.Nallamma Naidu enquired him.

During the cross-examination, he has deposed that
when he was the Minister, he gave the particulars of
hisassets to the Prime Minister. Then Mr.Chandrashekar
was the Prime Minister. When he won as the M.P. from
Madurai Constituency, he has not submitted particulars of
his assets to the Parliament. It was mandated. It was not
necessary for him to show his truthfulness. Hence, he did
not submit his particulars of his assets. In 1977, he was
elected as M.P. from Bombay (North East) Constituency.
In 1980 also he was elected from the same constituency.
Then also he did not submit particulars of his assets
in the parliament. Nobody had asked for those details.
PW-232 was recalled and re-examined by the learned
Special Public Prosecutor and questions were posed as
under:

Question: if I ask you, will you as a citizen, submit your
particulars of assets?

Reply: You do not have the right to ask for it but I will
consider it if Selvi Jayalalitha writes a letter asking about
my particulars of assets. Since 1974, I am a Member of
Parliament.

Question: In the politics only one Government was
dismissed on charges of corruption. Do you know about
that?

Reply: Not only one Government. Many State
Governments were dismissed for corruption. In
Karnataka, Devaraj Urs Government was dismissed for
corruption.

In 1976, Karunanidhi's Ministry was also dismissed
for corruption. He has filed a case against DMK Minister.
He has filed a Writ Petition before Hon'ble High Court in
Chennai to conduct CBI enquiry against then Thirupathur
MLA and the then Minister Periaswamy relating to the
Sandalwood. He has also lodged a separate complaint
against Tharapuram MLA for having given false caste
certificate. Moreover it is mentioned in the petition that
the false caste certificate is issued with the knowledge of
the Chief Minister. Till this day, he has not filed any
complaint against any of the DMK Ministers leveling
corruption charges. He does not know whether all the
information furnished in the petition under
Section 202

Cr.P.C. is taken up for investigation. On verification, he
found out whether the investigation is conducted relating
to charge of amassing wealth disproportionate to know
source of income is done only while investigating. Then he
has taken up only issues for investigation and not all other
issues he has raised in the petition. The Janatha Party is
functioning in a good Bungalow at Santhome. He does not
remember about the number of grounds of land that
Bungalow occupies. Janatha Party is not paying any rent
for that building. He does not remember whether Selvi
Jayalalitha has acted as a heroine in 136 Movies. May be
by acting as a heroine in 136 Movies, she would have
earned lot of assets.

He opposed Selvi Jayalalitha politically from 1992 to
1996. Since 1980, he was a Loksabha Member
continuously for 6 years. After that he did not win in
Loksabha Elections. Once he contested and he was
defeated.

He was defeated in Madurai. It is wrong to state
that, in alliance with Jayalalitha, he won the next Loksabha
elections. But with the support of ADMK alliance, he won
the Loksabha from Madurai. In 1999, he was defeated
from Madurai without ADMK alliance (support). He has
never referred Selvi Jayalalitha as Durga, Saraswathy or as
Lakshmi. But he has told that the Mayavathi, Sonia
Gandhi and Jayalalitha should play a role of Durga,
Saraswathy and Lakshmi to dismiss the Government of
BJP. It is wrong to state that he has not co-operated with
anybody in his political life. It is wrong to state that he left
Janasang Party. It is wrong to state that he had
differences of opinion with leadership of Janasangh. Some
leaders from Janatha Party left party due to differences of
opinion. But he is in Janatha Party only. It is wrong to
state that political instability is his way of political life. It is
wrong to state that he is the political enemy of Selvi
Jayalalitha and acting accordingly. During his thirteen
months of relationship with political party of Selvi
Jayalalitha he did not file any case against her. Thereafter
also he did not file any case against her.

In Thiruchi, Mr.Velusamy was in his party. He
expelled him because Mr.Velusamy lodged a complaint on
his behalf relating to Rajeev Gandhi murder case. But that
complaint dismissed. He has not filed defamation case
against anybody. He has not filed any case against
Mr.Velusamy. During DMK regime in the year 1996 he told
that he is going to file a case relating to Arrack
manufacturers. But he has not filed any cases like that.
Mr.Chandraswamy is his friend. But he is entangled in
many cases. During Selvi Jayalalitha's regime, he was
arrested in Chennai. He does not know the reasons of
arrest. It is wrong to state that he sought the
recommendations of the then Chief Minister Selvi
Jayalalitha for the release of Mr.Chandraswamy. It is
wrong to state that as the AIDMK Party refused to have
alliance with his party, he has given blatant complaint
against the President of ADMK Party. He does not
remember in how many places the Janatha Party has
contested in 1996 Assembly election. Now he does not
remember whether they have lost deposit in all the
contested places. It is wrong to state that despite his
perpetual political threat she did not submit herself to his
threat, hence he lodged this blatant complaint. It is again
wrong to state that, as she did not get along with him
politically, he was telling blatant complaints against her.
When Mr.Narasimharao was the Prime Minister and Selvi
Jayalalitha was the Chief Minister, both did not have
cordial relationship. Then Mr.Chenna Reddy from Andra
Pradesh was the Governor of Tamil Nadu.

Mr. Chenna Reddy granted permission to file a case
against Selvi Jayalalitha. During that time,he canvassed
against Selvi Jayalalitha from place to place. It is wrong to
state that time, Selvi Jayalalitha was opposing
Mr.Narasimha Rao, he was used as weapon by
Mr.Narasimha Rao. That time, the Tamil Nadu
Government tried to arrest him. But did not arrest him as
he received an order for that from the Supreme Court. It
is wrong to state that from the beginning he did not like
Selvi Jayalalitha. It is wrong to state, like seasons his
political ideologies also getting changed. It is wrong to
state that because of his hatred against. In 1991, the
DMK Government was dismissed. Immediately, the
Assembly and the Parliament election came. It is wrong to
state that, he has asked Selvi Jayalalitha, the South
Chennai Parliament Constituency, it is wrong to state that
as she refused to allot him that seat, he developed hatred
against her. In 1991 he did not contest election. It is
wrong to state that, as she did not allot him the seat, he
could not contest in the election. It is wrong to state that
she is capable of gracefully forgiving people. He has
lodged this kind of complaints. It is wrong to state that in
his view that nobody from DMK are involved in corruption.
During the end of 1998, he has filed a suit relating to
manipulating the caste certificate. But so far, no final
decision has been given in that case. He did not file the
suit in the Chennai High Court for expeditious disposal of
that case. It is wrong to state that relating to the Madurai
Idly Shop problem and action against the DMK
representative; initially he took speedier steps, later he left
without taking any action. That DMK personality is
Mr.M.K.Alagiri, who is son of Mr.M.Karunanidhi. He has
expressed an opinion that Sun TV activities are illegal. But
in regard to that he has not lodged any complaint. Hehas
not remained as a mute spectator after filing a case. He
does not remember, whether hehas raised about Sun TV in
the Parliament. In this regard, he has not filed any case
because he was not able to marshal sufficient evidence
necessary for filing of case. It is wrong to state that his
approach towards Selvi Jayalalitha is both of enmity and
hatred.
During Re-examination, he states that in 1976, the
complaint lodged against DMK Government was
withdrawn. The Tamil Nadu Police did not arrest
Mr.Chandraswamy. When he was not the member of
Loksabha, he had been the member of Rajyasabha many
times.

PW.233 - Srinivasa Rao has deposed that he was working
as Mandal Revenue Officer at Quitpullapur at Rangareddy
District from February 1995 to September 1996. He has
issued 'patta' of lands standing in the name of
Sathyanarayana Raju, Jayalalitha and N.R. Sandhya.
Jayalalitha is in possession of 3 acres of grape garden. He
has issued 'patta' of Sy. No.50 and 52E of Jedimetla
village. Grape wine was cultivated in 2 acres 20 guntas.
Patta was issued in respect of land in Jedimetla village for
the years 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, Adangal relating to
Sy. No.93/E and Sy. No.93/U to Bashirabad village for the
years 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95.

During cross examination, he states that there are
two separate borewells at Sy.Nos.52 and 52E in Jedimetla
Village as shown in Adangal.

PW.234 - Mohammed Asmathulla Hussain has deposed
that he was working as Commissioner, Tirpur Panchayat
Union, Siruthapur Village and he has issued permission to
Tmt. Ilavarasi for construction of the building after
collecting fees of Rs.8,725/-. Siruthapur is a small village.

PW.235 - R. Govindan has deposed that from July 1995
to July 1999 he worked as Branch Manager, Thiruvaroor
Branch of Indian Bank. Tmt. Suchitra Sundarrajan
contacted over phone in September 1995 and told to give
Rs.50 lakhs loan to Ramraj Agro Mills. Rs.1.65 Crores was
sanctioned from head office, out of that Rs.50 lakhs was
given to Ramraj Agro Mills by Thiruvaroor Branch. Loan
was for working capital. Ramraj Agro Mills is a joint stock
company.

PW.236 - Jagannathan speaks about encroachment by
Accused No.2 in different villages namely Pyanoor,
Karugulapallam.

PW.237 - S.S.Jawahar was working as Assistant
Secretary to the Chief Minister. Accused Nos. 2 and 3
were staying in Chief Minister's House. Mr. Sudhakaran's
marriage took place in the year 1995. Granddaughter of
Shivaji Ganeshan was engaged to get married to him.
Marriage reception, musical concerts of Mandolin Srinivas
and A.R. Rahman was conducted. Moulis Agencies
Company printed the wedding invitations. He pasted the
address of 400 VIPs on the invitations who were Chief
Ministers of many States. Many cooks came from
Thanjavur to cook food for the marriage. He has seen 4th
Accused Ilavarasi in Poes garden. He does not know the
address of the building constructed under Siruthur.
During his period of work, Selvi Jayalalitha was very strict
in her administration and was very particular that one
department officer should not interfere with another
department officer. Concerned party workers were
appointed to look after the work of AIADMK. Criminal
cases were filed and disciplinary proceedings were initiated
against higher officers of previous Government and two
Chief Secretaries, Hari Bhaskar and Venkatraman, Senior
IAS Officers, C.Ramachandran, T. R. Srinivasan, Pandey,
Acharialu, Kurupoora Sundara Pandiyam, Sampath,
Satyamurthy. He was not allotted work for one year. This
day out of compulsion, he is giving evidence and stating
whatever he knows. This witness was re-examined
because of the contradictory statements. He stated what
he has stated in his chief examination is correct.

PW.238 - Ananda Padmanabhan is a partner in the
company Nathalla Anjaneyulu Chetty & Sons. They sell
silver, gold and diamonds. Cheque for Rs.37,144/- and
Rs.3,99,834/- were given in the name of the firm. Above
cheques were given for supplying two diamond studs
having 17 carrots and 47 cents of diamonds and 36,160
grams of gold. Two separate receipts were made in the
name of Prabha and Sasikala.

During his cross examination, he states as per the
instructions of Nallamma Naidu, he prepared receipts in
the name of N. Sasikala and Prabha.

PW.239 - S. Udaya Shankar has deposed that from June
1994 to June 1997, he was working as Senior Manager in
Chennai. Bharani B Resorts availed a loan of Rs.325 lakhs
from Abhirampuram Indian Bank.

PW.240 - Latika Saran has deposed that she was working
as I.G. of Police V & AC, Special Investigation Cell No.II,
Chennai. During 1996, she was working as a Dy.Inspector
General of Police in the same Wing. She has been directed
under
Section 202
Cr.P.C. by the Principal Sessions Judge,
Chennai to investigate on the basis of a petition filed by
Dr.Subramaniam Swamy. (Crl.M.P.No.3238/96). She has
received a copy of the complaint from the Court for the
purpose of investigation. She took up investigation
immediately. She was assisted by Tr.Nallamma Naidu,
then ADSP of V&AC Dept. and other officers. She has
issued an order under
Section 17
of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. The order dated 1.7.1996 is Ex.P.2265.
During investigation we collected records from the banks,
documents from the Sub-Registrar's offices, from the
registrar of firms pertaining to investments, properties in
the names of former Chief Minister Selvi J.Jayalalitha,
Tmt.N.Sasikala and her close relatives and their business
ventures. Dr.Subramanian Swamy was examined by
Tr.Nallamma Naidu in her presence in the V & AC City
detachment office. On 14.8.96 the investigation was
stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. On 4.9.96
the Hon'ble High Court of Madras vacated the stay and
directed the Director, V & AC to nominate an officer of his
choice to continue with the investigation. On 7.9.96 the
Director, V & AC nominated Tr.Nallamma Naidu, then
ADSP to take over the investigation. She handed over all
the records to Tr.Nallamma Naidu.

During the cross-examination, she has deposed that
she was not examined for this case by Nallamma Naidu.
She was in charge of this case from 21.6.96 to 14.8.96.
She has received only the copy of the complaint filed by
PW 232 in the Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court,
Chennai. Original complaint was not given to her. Except
Rajya Sabha proceedings, no document were filed along
with the complaint filed PW 232. On 18.7.96 PW 232 was
examined in her presence by Nallamma Naidu. At that
time Nallamma Naidu recorded the statement of PW 232.
PW 232 did not produce any document when he was
examined by Nallamma Naidu. While going through the
order of Principal Judge, she was aware that she was
directed to investigate on the complaint. During the period
of her investigation, I consulted our Legal Advisor and was
advised not to register a case as the matter being handled
under
Section 202
Cr.P.C. She has nominated about 10 or
12 Police Officers to investigate in to that complaint.
Those Officers were drawn from various Districts. As per
the order of Principal Judge she had to file report on or
before 20.8.96. Till 14.8.96 she did not prepare the
Report to be sent to Principal Judge, and at the same time
her team was examining the witnesses and collecting
documents. She has maintained a Case Diary for her
investigation. Her Office also maintains General Diary. She
cannot exactly say how many witnesses were examined
and how many documents were recovered by her Deputed
Officers. If it is asked about 30 witnesses would have
been examined by her Deputed Officers the answer is she
accepts that. She has concentrated mainly on Bank
transactions. She has perused and obtained copies from
Canara Bank, Mylapore Branch, Abhiramapuram Indian
Bank, Central Bank of India, Secunderabad and
Hyderabad, Bank of Madura, Anna Nagar Branch, Canara
Bank, Kellys Branch. She was then and there informing
the development in her investigation to the Director of
Vigilance and Anti Corruption and I got his advices. As per
Act 49/88 I have authorized all the 13 officers under

Section 17
and she does not remember how many officers
were authorized under
Section 18
of that Act. She was not
in a position even after looking in the Case Diary, on what
date and under what proceedings she has issued orders
under
Section 18
of that Act. The same answer is
applicable for the proceedings issued under
Section 17
of
that Act. Her Director did not find fault with her till
14.8.96. Till November 1997 I continued as D.I.G. in the
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department. Ex.D.10 is the
order of the High Court in Crl.O.P.No.5755 of 96, dated
4.9.96. In that order her continuance of investigation in
that case was not prohibited. After Ex.D.10, she was not
allowed to continue the investigation in this case and one
V.C.Perumal, was nominated to investigate this case. The
Director has nominated Nallamma Naidu to investigate this
case. She did not send any Report to Principal Sessions
Judge, stating that she was not in a position to file a
Report as called for by Principal Sessions Judge as she was
divested with investigation. She has also handed over the
Case Diary to Nallamma Naidu. The Officers who assisted
her for the investigation in this case are 1. P.Jagannathan,
Inspector of Police, DV & A.C., 2. L.Purushothaman,
Inspector of Police, Chennai, 3. R. Dakshinamoorthy,
D.S.P., V & A.C., Cuddalore, 4. Thiru Valsarajan,
Inspector of Police, V & A.C., Chennai, 5. Thiru Nalamma
Naidu, Additional S.P. V & A.C., Chennai, 6. C.Murugesan,
D.S.P., V & A.C., Chennai, 7. P.S.Sethuraman, Inspector
of Police, V & A.C., Chennai, 8. Thiru G. Shankar,
Inspector, V & A.C., Chennai, 9. Thiru
T.R.S.Shanmugavelandi, D.S.P., V & A.C., Thanjavur, 10.
Thiru P. Janarthanam, D.S.P., V & A.C., Tirunelveli, 11. S.
Radhakrishnan, D.S.P., V & A.C., Madurai, 12. E.Babu,
D.S.P., V& A.C., Vellore, 13. M. Jayapalan, Inspector, V
& A.C., Kanjeepurm. I have issued orders for Jayapalan
under
Section 17
and not under
Section 18
of P.C.Act.
Similarly she has issued orders under
Section 17
of P.C.
Act to V.Babu, C.Murugesan, Nallamma Naidu,
Purushothaman and not under
Section 18
of P.C.Act. But
she has issued orders to valasarajan under
Sections 17

and
of P.C.Act. She has issued orders
u/s. 18
of
P.C.Act to Jagannathan, Dakshinamoorthy,
P.S.Sethuraman, G. Shankar, T.R.Shanmugavelandi, T.
Janarthanam and S.Radhakrishnan. She has not issued
orders for the above Officers
u/s. 17
of P.C.Act. She has
not examined any witness during her investigation in this
case. She did not get any further opinion other than that
of her legal Advisor's opinion. Further she has not
obtained any written legal advice from her Legal Advisor.
She has got only oral legal advice from him. She was not
aware whether the statements recorded and documents
recovered have been submitted to this Court. She has
also sought the assistance of Inspector Krishna Rao who
was working in the Commissioner of Police Office for this
case. Other than the above Krishna Rao, she has sought
for more persons from her investigation. But 3 Officers
were sent for it. They will not come under 13 Officers
nominated by her. For her investigation, she has specified
names of Officers to be sent to assist her for investigation.
When she has started investigation in this case, political
situate was tense. When the investigation was going on in
this case News papers and Sun T.V. published the matters
concerned in the investigation. When she was
investigating this case PW 241 was working as Director of
Prosecution. I conducted Periodical Meetings with her
Officers who are on duty for this case. As soon as
collected the recorded statements of witnesses and
documents recovered by her officers she has sent them
then and there to the Principal Sessions Judge. During her
investigation period she did not send any statements or
documents gathered during her investigation period to
Principal Sessions Judge. PW 232 has given complaint
only against A1. No witness was cited in the complaint
given by PW 232. Her team has issued summons to the
witnesses for examination and for production of documents
under
Section 160
Cr.P.C. Apart from issuing summons,
personal contacts were made with Bank Officials and other
Departmental Officers for the collection of documents.
After Ex.D.10, Nallama Naidu was nominated as
Investigation Officer. Her Director has nominated her on
4.9.96 to supervise the investigation. But she did not
exercise that power. No further order to supersede the
above order was passed.
PW.241 - V.C.Perumal has deposed that he was retired
on 31.7.2000 from the Anti-Corruption and Prevention,
Vigilance Department as Additional Director General of
Police in Special Investigation Division-1. Again he was
reappointed as the officer on Special Duty and he was
working in the same post. Previously, he was worked as
I.G. in the Police Department in the same Special Division.
Dr.Subramanian Swamy had filed a writ petition under

Section 202
of Cr.P.C. in Chennai Principal Sessions Court.
According to that after getting permission from the court
Tmt.Lathikasaran, DIG in Anti-Corruption and Prevention
Department, had to enquire E.K.A.Pa`. The court ordered
the enquiry to assist her Additional Deputy Superintendent
Thiru Nallamma Naidu and some police department
officials (all working in Anti-Corruption and Prevention
Department and Vigilance Department) were appointed by
the Director, Anti-Corruption, Prevention and Vigilance
Department. Then the investigation started. This team
enquired Dr.Subramaniam Swamy and other witnesses.
They collected some documents from the banks, finance
companies and Registration office. Some documents were
collected from the companies started by Selvi Jayalalitha
and her associates. All those documents were verified by
a separate division. In that situation High Court stayed
one order, Criminal M.P.No.5755/96. Accordingly, the
investigation could not continue because of the stay. The
stay was revoked on 4.9.96 by the court. In the same
order, it was stated that, Thiru. Nallamma Naidu could
continue with the investigation. An order was passed to
this effect. The court ordered that the officer appointed by
the Director, Anti-Corruption and Prevention Department
would continue with the investigation. On this basis
Nallamma Naidu was appointed and he continued the
investigation and he seized the documents relating to Selvi
Jayalalitha and he examined them. In this situation after
he took charge as IG i.e., on 9.9.1996 immediately, he did
a detailed examination of the documents. Particularly
when we examined these documents along with the
evidences, it was evident that Selvi Jayalalitha when she
was in power as the Chief Minister had acquired
disproportionate wealth and property more than her known
income. On the basis of the documents collected so far he
knew that a case could be filed on Selvi Jayalalitha under

Section 13(2)
read with
Section 13(1)(e)
Anti-Corruption
and Prevention Act, 1988. Ex.P2266 is that FIR. In the
same FIR only, he appointed Thiru. Nallama Naidu,
Additional Superintendent as Investigation Officer, and he
issued the order. He has submitted the FIR to the
Principal Sessions Court. He has advised Thiru. Nallamma
Naidu to investigate under
Section 202
of Cr.P.C. along
with this case L.P.N.13/AC/96, the Secretariat case. As
the investigation had to be carried out in many districts of
Tamil Nadu and some other states he appointed some
officers to be of help to Thiru. Nallamma Naidu and passed
an order to this effect. The Ex.P2267 is the order he
passed to Inspector Thiru Jaya Prakash under the
Anti-
Corruption and Prevention Act
1988,
Section 17
. Under
this Act 1988
Section 17
, Anti-Corruption and Prevention
Act, he ordered Inspector Karunakaran, Ooty, on 19.9.96,
this is Ex.P2268, under Act 1988
Section 17
, Anti-
Corruption and Prevention Act the Inspector Thiru.
Jayapalan, Kancheepuram was given an order on 19.9.96.
This is Ex.P2269.
Under Act
Section 17
, Anti-
Corruption and Prevention Act, Inspector Thiru.
Vivekanandan Kovai was given an order on 19.9.96. This
is Ex.P2270.
Under Act
Section 17
, Anti-Corruption
and Prevention Act, Inspector Thiru.Suresh Kumar Tiruchy
was given an order on 19.9.96 as per Ex.P2271.
Under
the Anti-Corruption and Prevention Act

Section 17
, he gave
power to investigate and passed an order to the following
members, ADSP. Thiru Shanmuga Velandi, Thanjore, DSP
Thiru Janardhan, Tirunelveli, DSP Thiru Adiya Padam,
Tiruchy, DSP Pari, Erode, DSP Thanga Pandian
Shivagangai, DSP Dakshina Murthy Cuddalore, DSP
Asokan, Salem under the same Act, he ordered the
following members for the investigation. DSP Paul
Devadoss, Dharmapuri, ADSP N.K.Velu Kovai, SP
Anbucelzhian, Chennai. These orders are Ex.P2272 in a
row (total 14 orders). He has sent the copies of the orders
to Nallamma Naidu and Principal Sessions Court, under my
supervision Nallamma Naidu completed his investigation in
this case and he submitted the charge sheet on 4.6.97.

During the cross-examination, he has deposed that if
they asked for his educational qualification it is not related
to this case. He has joined in the police department after
he passed in the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
Group I examination. It is wrong to state that when he
wrote the Group-I Examinations he was a teacher. His
father-in-law's name is Aroor Muthu. His father-in-law was
elected as MP from the DMK Party in 1962 and 1967.
When he was in service then the Chief Minister was
Thiru.M.Karunanidhi and had only official connections with
him and not any other contact because his father-in-law
belonged to DMK. In 1965 he joined Police Department.
In 1994 he was promoted as IG. He has received the file
prepared by PW.240 in this case. The order came from the
Tamil Nadu Government. The order was given to him by
his Department Director Thiru.Raghavan and asked him to
file the FIR in this case. On the basis of legal advice and
as he too was satisfied, he filed the FIR of this case. The
Government order came from Government Public
Department. He remembers that the order was signed
either by the Chief Secretary or the Public Department
Secretary. In the FIR Ex.P2266 filed by him, he did not
mention the above said Tamil Nadu Government Order.
The above said Tamil Nadu Government order is about 3
pages and it is in their Head Office file. Regarding his
case, the PW.240 collected the witness, formal statements
and the documents were in the file taken from the PW.240.
In the Chennai Principal Sessions Court, the PW.232 had
given a complaint under
Section 200
of Cr.P.C. So the
court ordered to carry out the investigation on PW.240.
This detail he came to know through the file. When he
filed the FIR regarding this case, he knew that in the
Principal Sessions Court, the investigation under
Section
of Cr.P.C. was pending. In this case when he filed the
FIR, according to PW.232, under
Section 202
of Cr.P.C.
complaint was given on Selvi Jayalalitha about the
acquired disproportionate wealth and property case. Even
then, they contained two different allegations. According
to the FIR
Section 13(2)
jointed read with
Section 13(1)(e)

were registered under
Anti-Corruption and Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988
. PW.232 has given complaint in the
Principal Sessions Court under the same Section. The
Ex.P2266 was registered only in the name of Selvi
Jayalalitha. PW.232 has given complaint only on Selvi
Jayalalitha, in the Principal Sessions Court. On the
complaint of the PW.232, the enquiry was being conducted
under
Section 202
of Cr.P.C. So, he did not take the
permission from the Principal Sessions Court to file the
FIR. Further as the investigation was going on under

Section 202
of Cr.P.C, he did not inform the Principal
Sessions Court about the filing of the FIR. He knew the
details of the order of the Principal Sessions Judge
thatTmt.Lathika Saran had to conduct the enquiry under

Section 202
of Cr.P.C. Already the Criminal
M.P.No.5755/96 had been investigated by PW.240, so the
last order was issued that she can continue the
investigation. Further, in that order, there was no
objection for continuing the investigation by PW.240. As
already in this case, the PW.240 had investigated and the
witnesses were enquired and the documents were seized,
so far this reason, he did not inform it to his Director, that
the same person could continue the investigation. He saw
the investigation file done by the PW.240. When he looked
in to it, already about 300 witnesses had been enquired
and many documents had been seized. He came to know
about all these from the file. In this case, after he
registered the FIR, the witnesses who had already been
enquired in the investigation of the PW.240, were further
examined and their oral depositions were taken by Thiru.
Nallamma Naidu. But, he advised Thiru.Nallamma Naidu
that all the documents seized during the investigation of
PW.240 were to be taken as they were. Already, he
informed that the documents were many, there were more
than 300 statements. A report was sent to the Principal
Sessions Court that accused Nos.2 to 4 were offenders.
But it was not changed in the FIR. At the time of filing the
FIR, when the FIR was filed, apart from the criminal
sections mentioned, other criminal sections were added
but the changes were not indicated in the FIR. In this case
after he has filed the FIR, he did not submit any requested
to the FIR. The Principal Sessions Judge that the enquiry
under
Section 202
of Cr.P.C. should be completed. But for
the enquiry under
Section 202
of Cr.P.C, many petitions
were filed asking for time. In this case, after FIR was filed
on the basis of FIR only, the investigation was done, not
on the basis of
Section 202
of Cr.P.C. Yet for filing the
investigation report under
Section 202
of Cr.P.C. Thiru
Nallamma Naidu, submitted petitions to the Principal
Sessions Court on a number of days and got the
permission to do so. In this case, in the investigation done
by PW.240, a number of witnesses were enquired by Thiru.
Nallamma Naidu and other officers. All the formal
statements and seized documents, all the accusations were
only on the first accused. So, he has filed the FIR on the
first accused only. In this case when the charge sheet was
filed there was no necessity to show separately the lists of
the witnesses enquired and the documents before the filing
of the FIR. This is because, the documents and the formal
statements of the witnesses in the enquiry before filing the
FIR and the documents after filing the FIR were combined
together. The formal statements of the witnesses in the
witness list attached to the charge sheet of this case were
taken after 18.9.96. The formal statements of the
witnesses enquired before the filing of the FIR were not
attached to the charge sheet. The formal statements of
the witnesses enquired in the investigation under
Section
of Cr.P.C, were not sent to the Principal Sessions
Court.

Apart from this case, he supervised the investigation
of about 7 or 8 cases. Above him, their department
Director would supervise his work. They used to discuss
this case in their departmental weekly and monthly
meetings. He knew the details of the momentous seized
from and sealed in Door No.18, 3rd Street, East
Abhiramapuram in the basement of the house. He knew
that two licensed revolvers were seized at the time of the
investigation from two individuals. The above mentioned
two Revolvers and mementos if asked whether they were
related to this case, he does not remember. He agrees that
the above mentioned articles if they are not related to the
case and if they are withheld, till now it is wrong. He has
supervised some proceedings like search of the house,
seizing the evidence and the value of the jewels and
building. When he searched five places, he directly
supervised for a little while. An inventory mahazar was
prepared for the search of that place, he did not observe
whether my presence in those places has been recorded in
the mahazar. Moreover he did not sign in any documents
prepared in those five places. He does not know whether
Jayalalitha was arrested in the CBCID case and kept in
Central Jail, Chennai from 17.12.96to 3.1.97. But he knew
that she was arrested by the CBCID Police. When Selvi
Jayalalitha was in the Central Jail, Chennai, her house door
No.36, Poes Garden was searched. He did not advise
Nallamma Naidu to conduct the search at Door No.36,
Poes Garden house from 18.9.96 to 7.12.96. During that
period, to search the above said house Nallamma Naidu
did not seek his advice. At the time of the search of
No.36, Poes Garden house, about twenty to thirty police
officers were divided into 4 to 5 teams. Apart from that,
outside the house too the police kept a watch. On
7.12.96, at No.36, Poes Garden house, he was there for
about six or seven hours. He did not procure any separate
order from the court to search the above said house on
7.12.96. But the order was taken to search the house.
From 7.12.96 to 12.12.96 for two or three days he looked
after the search of the house Door No.36, Poes Garden.
He refused to give permission to the 'Sun TV' and other
private T.V.Channels to videograph the proceedings of the
search from 7.12.96 to 12.12.96 at Door No.36, Poes
Garden house. He also informed the other officers about
my refusal to give permission to the private TV to
Videograph. After the search was completed in the said
house, the TV, Videographers went inside the said house
and videographed the house and telecasts the pictures on
all private TV Channels. Nallamma Naidu filed a petition
on 6.12.96 to search No.36, Poes Garden house and
J.D.Metla and the vineyards at Andhra Pradesh. As
Nallamma Naidu had written a letter to our Department
Director, the members of the Taramani Tamil Nadu Film
Division came and took video pictures of the places
searched. He passed an order stating that these photos
and videos should not be given to any private TV channels.
Particularly he did not ask in his petition permission to
search Door No.31A house. But in the inventory mahazar
Ex.P709, it is mentioned that Door No.31A was also
searched. In the Ex.P709 it was written that the rooms of
No.36 and 31A were also sealed. He told them to seal the
room. In the Ex.P709, in the 7.12.96 notes of the
proceedings, it was not mentioned that the sarees, suit
cases and jewels were found in that house. 7.12.96
proceedings means, the search details from 7.12.96 fore
noon 12 p.m. to 8.12.96 early morning 5 a.m. Regarding
this case Nallamma Naidu did not enquire me and did not
register my 'formal statement'. In this case he was the
complainant and still he could supervise the investigation,
as per the information given by our department lawyers.
As he got a doubt, that being a plaintiff, if he could
supervise the investigation, so he asked the lawyers about
this. Even after he filed the FIR in this case, PW.240
helped him for the investigation. Because of that in this
case, the PW.240 joined in the review meetings. At the
time when the case started, Nallamma Naidu worked as
Additional Superintendent of Police. After some months,
Nallamma Naidu get a promotion along with his batch
mates. After the retirement of Nallamma Naidu, the Tamil
Nadu Government reappointed him. In this case,he gave
power to 12 officers, accordingly,
Section 17
of the Anti-
Corruption and Prevention of Corruption Act and Four
officers under
Sections 17
and
of Anti-Corruption and
Prevention of Corruption Act. But for Nallamma Naidu, he
did not issue any order to give power according to
Sections
and
of Anti-Corruption and Prevention of Corruption
Act, separately. Ex.P2266, the FIR, also does not mention
that he gave power to Nallamma Naidu under
Sections 17

and
of Anti Corruption and Prevention of Corruption
Act. At the time when Nallamma Naidu was investigating
this case or when he got promotion also, he did not give
any power to investigate according to the
Sections 17
and
of Anti Corruption and Prevention of Corruption Act. If
according, to the
Section 18
of Anti-Corruption and
Prevention of Corruption Act, those officers who had not
been empowered cannot go to banks and seize the
documents, about that he does not know. We wrote
letters to the Chief Engineer to value the buildings. The
engineers were allotted on the basis of our letter. Like
that we wrote a letter to the customs department. Then
PW.125 Vasudevan was allotted. Our Department Director
wrote letters to the Chief Engineer and the Customs
Department. He does not know that if those letters were
submitted to the court. They have some rules regarding
the functioning of our department. He verified the reports
given by the valuers. He did not compare the details of
the reports given by the valuers without department rules.
The PW.125 came late to value the jewels. So Nallamma
Naidu brought the goldsmiths Venkatesan and Jawaharlal
S/o Sukraj to value the jewels in Door No.36, Poes Garden
house. To bring two outside persons, Nallamma Naidu
took oral permission from him. Those to goldsmiths
helped to value the jewels on those two days. He does not
know that if oral deposition was taken and registered from
the 2 goldsmiths about their work. They did not receive
any report from the 2 persons about their work. He
remembers that one officer who was along with Nallamma
Naidu, written down the information given by the 2 people
at the time of the valuation. PW.125 came late, they
asked the Customs Department for other alternative
arrangement. For that they said, that they did not have
other officers. The notes given by the 2 goldsmiths would
be in about 5 or 6 pages. He does not know that if the
notes taken by the assistant of Thiru Nallamma Naidu were
sent to the court or not.

Before the search was conducted in Door No.36,
Poes Garden house i.e., on 16.10.96, 17.10.96 and
18.10.96, the investigation team searched houses,
buildings and other places, totally 135 places were
searched on these days. In this case the charge sheet was
filed on 4.6.97 at that time only the 2nd to 4th accused
were shown as accused in this case. Upto that time
Nallamma Naidu the Investigation Officer had called the
three persons for enquiry, assuming them as accused.
From the beginning of this case when the petitions were
filed in the Principle Sessions Court, he does not know that
whether Nallamma Naidu has mentioned 2 to 4 opponents
as accused and were found guilty. When they discussed
the progress of the investigation of this case, he too
decided that the accused Nos.2 to 4 should be considered
as offenders. Nallamma Naidu has to be asked if written
information was sent to accused Nos.2 to 4 to call them for
enquiry. The inventory mahazar of the Door No.36, Poes
Garden house, the information and notes were prepared by
the 4 team members. There were 4 or 5 officers in each
team. He does not remember which officer led the team.
He does not remember which officer led the team.
Because of the heavy work load four teams were formed.
On 7.12.96 at 12.30 p.m. forenoon when they went to the
Door No.36, Poes Garden, for the first time, generally they
saw all the places in that house. When they went to the
house, a person named Baskar from the house and a
lawyer (name not known) raised objections. When they
show the court order, nobody objected our proceeding.
Nallamma Naidu divided the work among the team
members. He read the inventory mahazar Ex.P709. In
that Ex.P709, it was not written how many teams were
formed and what were the works done by the teams. In
that Ex.P709, 16 pages were written about the
investigation done in Door No.36, Poes Garden on 7.12.96
and 8.12.96 upto afternoon 1.30. Nallamma Naidu had
not written those 16 pages. The Ex.P709 was received by
the court on 12.12.96. While preparing the supervision
mahazar for No.36, Poes Garden house, the notes were
taken. He asked them to prepare the inventory then and
there, but it was not prepared. During the 7.12.96 to
9.2.96 search at the No.36, Poes Garden he asked
Nallamma Naidu whether they were following my advice,
and he told me that he was acting as per my advice. Now
he came to know that Nallamma Naidu did not act
according to his advice and had changed the order of
things. They do not have a general diary in our
department office. He does not maintain any register for
any daily office work. The file regarding this case was
maintained by Nallamma Naidu. The six pages petition
filed in the Principal Sessions Court on 6.12.96, there is no
court seal in all those six pages. Further number was not
allotted for that petition. According to our Department
Rules, our head office has to act as a police station. Their
office has to maintain all the registers like a police station
maintains. Only Nallamma Naidu knows whether
Venkatesh Acchary and Jawaharlal were recognized
valuers. In their department, rules were framed for the
framing of the
Sections 17
and
of Anti-Corruption and
Prevention of Corruption Act. But in some orders issued
according to
Section 18
of Anti-Corruption and Prevention
of Corruption Act, some sentences with regard to the rules
were not mentioned. It was known that the second
accused paid income tax even before 1.7.91. The 4th
accused also paid income tax even before 1.7.91. This
was brought to his notice. Further, Selvi Jayalalitha too
had been continuously paying the income tax and property
tax from 1963. This was also brought to his notice. Selvi
Jayalalitha, Sudhakaran and Elavarasi had been separately
assessed by the income tax department. Whether all the
four accused in this case have received separate notices
from the department regarding the details of their
properties, only Nallamma Naidu should be questioned.
Regarding this property, a notice served to Selvi
Jayalalitha on 14.4.97 and clarification was sought for an
amount of Rs.62,25,20,096/-, but in the charge sheet that
amount was mentioned as Rs.66,65,20,395/-. If they ask
him, whether in the Tamil Nadu Government letter dated
30.4.97 seeking permission to file the case on Jayalalitha,
the amount was mentioned as Rs.65,86,70,850/-. This
can be clarified only with only by Nallamma Naidu. In the
Tamil Nadu political party functions, general meetings,
conferences and the birthday party of leaders, the public
and the party members give their gifts. The gifts and
money is given to the leaders at the above said functions
as a token of love. In the second additional list filed along
with the charge sheet the details of the assets from 1 to
17 were given. These properties belonged to Selvi
Jayalalitha before 1.7.1991. The value of the door No.36,
Poes Garden house mentioned in the additional list 1 and 2
are the same. Further the building value with all the
additional buildings put up was shown in item No.181 in
the additional list - 2 as Rs.7,24,98,000/-. Our case was
based on the additional and new construction in No.36,
Poes Garden house. About the details of the new
construction and measurements only Nallamma Naidu
should be asked. Before 1.7.91 in the door No.36, Poes
Garden house, what was the constructed area in squares?
Only Nallamma Naidu can answer. In Chennai, if a
property was purchased in 1967, the value will go up many
times by 1991. M.O.1 is a luxury bus. He does not
remember in whose name the bus is. He does not
remember if they have collected the copies of registration
certificate for their vehicles involved. In this case, he does
not know that if the cost price of the vehicles mentioned in
the list tallies with the original price of purchase. When
they calculate the income tax regarding the vehicles, they
take into account the wear and tear value each year. He
does not know that if the discount for wear and tear of
vehicles was given in this case and deducted. He has not
seen properly whether the vehicles not belonging to 1, 2
and 4 accused have been taken into their account and
valued. Only Nallamma Naidu can answer. In the
additional list, the vehicle items 230 to 264 were
mentioned. In that for none of the vehicles the date of
purchase was mentioned. Of those he does not know that
if the seven vehicles were purchased before 1.7.91 and
whether they have been mentioned in the additional list.2.
The Maruthi Gypsy car No.TN.09 P 4171 is the Ex.P235.
According to this, the car was purchased before 1.7.91.
According to Ex.P241 the tempo trax TN 09 P 6975 was
purchased before 1.7.91 by AIADMK party. According to
Ex.P242, the Omni bus Bajaj Tempo TN 09 6966 was
purchased before 1.7.91 by the AIADMK party. According
to Ex.P243, the Swaraj Mazda No.TS 01 9090 was
purchased by Selvi Jayalalitha in 1988. According to
Ex.P244 Swaraj Mazda vehicle ISR 333 was purchased by
Selvi Jayalalitha in 1989. According to Ex.P245, Swaraj
Mazda TN 01 9999 was purchased by Jaya Publications
before 1.7.91. According to Ex.P249 the Contessa Car
No.TN 01 0033 was purchased by Jayalalitha in 1990.
According to the documents from Ex.P224 to Ex.P227,
vehicles mentioned in the documents the Exs.P223, P234,
P236 to P239 were purchased by Sasi Enterprises. The
vehicles mentioned in the documents Exs.P246 to 248
were purchased by Anjaneya Printers. The vehicles
mentioned in Exs.P251, P252, P255 were purchased by
Jaya Publications. The vehicles mentioned in the Exs.P256
and P257 were purchased by the Namadhu MGR office,
only Nallamma Naidu can tell whether the Jaya
Publications, Sasi Enterprises, Anjaneya Printers and Metal
Kings had started functioning before 1.7.91. He did not
check whether the accused involved in this case had
brought their vehicles by paying full amount or on
installments. It is known that before 1.7.91 Selvi
Jayalalitha had kept permanent fixed deposits in 16 banks
and companies. He does not know that whether the fixed
deposit amount was above three crores. The fixed deposit
amount mentioned in the above banks kept by Selvi
Jayalalitha after maturity was re-deposited again. To
know the assets of Selvi Jayalalitha before 1.7.91 after
consultation with the advocates who went into the details
minutely the value was arrived at. The original renewal FD
receipts were not seized and submitted in this court.
According to the rules of our department, before taking
action against any government servant we must first know
the approximate family expenditure of that person.
Regarding this approximate family expenditure, the
statistic department officer was not enquired and his
deposition was not taken. He does not know that whether
the public and the party gave gifts and gift cheques for the
birthday of Selvi Jayalalitha in 1991-92 and 1992-93 and
the other years. Nallamma Naidu only can answer
whether the gift cheque amount would be added to the
income of the receiver and whether the amount was added
for the calculation of the tax. They come to know that
Selvi Jayalalitha had shares in many firms. But he does
not know that how many shares she had and in how many
firms. The members who assessed the slippers, sarees
and watches in the house of Selvi Jayalalitha were brought
by Nallamma Naidu only. Only Nallamma Naidu should be
asked where was the necessity to bring persons for
valuation other then the persons mentioned by the court.
He does not remember the date on which the evidences
were first seized at Selvi Jayalalitha's house during the
search. In Ex.P709 it was not mentioned about the weight
of the silver, gold, diamond jewels types of the jewels in
Selvi Jayalalitha's house. In Ex.P2266 in the 4thPara it was
mentioned about the 2 to 4 accused. But Ex.P2266 does
not show them as offender (guilty).

He does not know that whether the bank accounts of
Thirumathi Sasikala were frozen on 21.9.96, 9 months
before filing the charge sheet regarding this case. He did
not advice to prepare a model plan when Ex.P709 was
prepared. But He advised that the procedures should be
followed. He did not give any particular advice at the time
of furnishing the proceedings in the investigation of the
D.No.36, Poes Garden house on 7.12.96. He did not ask
particularly if the general details given by him were fulfilled
during that search and investigation. At the period, apart
from this case, 7 more cases were framed on Selvi
Jayalalitha. He did not keep connection with the
investigating officers in other cases, but Nallamma Naidu
had connection with those persons. He does not know that
whether the petitioner for search of D.No.36, Poes Garden
house given on 6.12.96 was submitted at the Principal
Sessions Court or at the Principal Sessions Court Judge's
house. That petition was not prepared by Government
Advocate. That petition was prepared by Nallamma Naidu
on 7.12.96. Before our team went for the investigation at
D.No.36, Poes Garden, we come to know that Selvi
Jayalalitha had been arrested. It is not correct to say that
he was present at the time of Selvi Jayalalitha's arrest in
her house by the CBCID. It is not correct to say that he
told Selvi Jayalalitha "you have taken a long time" when
she came out of her house. He does not know that
whether they brought the water canon from the metro
water and sewerage department to help in investigation of
D.No.36, Poes Garden house. He does not know that
whether they used the water canon to check the house
taps, sending water into it to know whether any articles
were hidden inside the pipes. During the investigation at
No.36, Poes Garden activities like verification, seizing
valuation, taking video and photographs were done step by
step not at a time. He does not know that whether in
D.No.36, Poes Garden house from 7.12.96 to 20.12.96
activities like investigation seizing, valuation, video and
photographs were carried or not. It is not correct to say
that wanting to arrest Selvi Jayalalitha when she was not
in her house, from 18.10.96 to her arrest date 7.12.96,
her house was not investigated. Only Nallamma Naidu can
answer who gave the legal advice to get the permission
from the Chennai Corporation Principal Sessions Judge to
investigate the places which don't come under the
jurisdiction of the Chennai Principal Sessions Judge.
Regarding this he did not pay attention. In the Chennai
Central Jail when Selvi Jayalalitha was enquired from
27.12.96 to 31.12.96 and on 2.1.97, he was not there.
Only Nallamma Naidu should be asked whether permission
was taken from the court to enquire her in the jail. The
M.O.1 was valued by Mr.Venkataraman a transport Deputy
Officer and he gave the report. He does not know that
whether that report was notified in the court. From
7.12.96, when Selvi Jayalalitha's house was under
investigation, then and there the details were telecast in
the Sun TV. This was not brought to my notice. He did
not see the video shots regarding the above said matter in
the TV. He did not ask my officers whether they followed
my advice that the private TV Channels should not take
video photos when the investigation was in progress in
D.No.36, Poes Garden. The telecast of the investigation
proceedings in Selvi Jayalalitha's house by the TV Channels
was not brought to his notice till now. Inspite of his advice
if the investigation proceedings in Selvi Jayalalitha's house
were allowed to be photographed by private TV channels
and telecast, it has to be condemned. Nallamma Naidu
can only answer why 75 witnesses enquired regarding the
gift articles given at the time of Selvi Jayalalitha's birthday
function in 1991-92 and the 111 documents seized during
this and the value for those gift articles and cheques were
not added to the attached list and why they are not
brought to this case.
He does not remember whether in their weekly and
monthly meetings they discussed about the gift cheques
and gift articles. The gift cheques and the gift articles
received by Selvi Jayalalitha amounting to Rs.3 crores
should have been shown in the income tax account only.
Nallamma Naidu should be asked why that Rs.3 crores
received through gifts and cheques have not been included
by Selvi Jayalalitha in the income tax calculation. It is
known that Selvi Jayalalitha is the AIADMK party General
Secretary and more than more one crore members are in
the said party. He does not know that Selvi Jayalalitha
received 3 lakh dollars, i.e., Rs.77,52,591/- from abroad.
They did not decide in our weekly or monthly meetings
that the amount should be taken as income in this case.
In this case, that amount was not mentioned as income of
Jayalalitha. He does not know that whether Selvi
Jayalalitha's locker No.1207 in Canara Bank, Mylapore
Branch was searched or not in this case. For that, the
petition was filed in the court, but in that petition the court
seal was not found. For the petition, the number was not
allotted. That there is no evidence in the locker is known
from the investigation jabitha. The 2 to 4 accused were
enquired by Nallamma Naidu for many hours on many
days. It is not correct to say that the second and fourth
accused were enquired on many days, so that they would
turn against Jayalalitha and could be compelled to become
approvers. From 17.12.96 to 31.12.96 and on 2.1.97 in
the Chennai Central Jail, when Selvi Jayalalitha was
enquired, whether the proceedings were done orally or in
question and answers form and if the proceedings were
prepared in writing. For all these details only Nallamma
Naidu can give answer. Nallamma Naidu told him that he
was going to enquire Selvi Jayalalitha in the jail. He did
not advice Nallamma Naidu does he has to enquire Selvi
Jayalalitha. Hedoes not know that whether the information
of the six days enquiry of Selvi Jayalalitha in the jail were
sent to the court as per procedure. The accused related to
this case were not enquired in my direct observation.
Hedoes not know that whether the information regarding
the enquiry of the 2nd and 4th accused conducted for many
days and many hours, was filed in the court as per
procedure. He knew that many petitions were filed by the
Government's side in this case. He did not bring the metal
detectors at the time of investigation in Selvi Jayalalitha's
house. He does not know that whether a team of
computer experts was brought at the time of investigation
in Selvi Jayalalitha house. If it is stated that Selvi
Jayalalitha was not enquired before and after the FIR was
filed, instead she was enquired when she was in the jail for
6 days because this was her mental conflicts and stress,
regarding this, only Nallamma Naidu can answer. After
verifying the account details in the attached list and
property details, he decided that they were correct. The
articles details mentioned in Ex.P709 and the articles
mentioned in the valuation report of the articles in the list
were differing. This information was not brought to his
notice. If it is stated that the details of the property
mentioned in the attached list and the value of the
property were deliberately shown high so as to put the
accused into trouble and their income was shown as less,
these he did not verify properly. In the above said
additional list, it is not shown that Selvi Jayalalitha and
Tmt.Sasikala would have owned at least one silk saree
before 1.7.99. He does not know that in the additional list
it was not mentioned about the shares purchased by Selvi
Jayalalitha before 1.7.91 in many companies and the
amount given to those shares. In the attached list it was
mentioned that Tmt.Sasikala owned 62 items of jewels on
1.7.91. He does not know that apart from 62 items of
jewels, the other jewels owned by Tmt.Sasikala after
1.7.91 were not mentioned in the attached list, they have
to ask Nallamma Naidu who valued the property and
jewellary owned by accused Nos.1 and 2 before 1.7.91
(mentioned in the attached list). He did not pay much
attention to the valuation of movable and immovable
property mentioned in the attached list after 1.7.91. He
does not know that why the details of the prices weight
and the statistical list mentioned in the documents from
Exs.P857 to P860 were not mentioned in the attached list.
For the valuation of the jewels regarding this case, the
valuation date rate was taken into consideration to fix the
rate of the jewels. Why they did not take the rate as on
30.4.96? They should ask Nallamma Naidu only. Why the
attached lists have not taken into consideration for the
valuation report given for Ex.P125. Only Nallamma Naidu
can answer. In this case, the date of purchase of jewels
was not taken into consideration for the valuation of
jewels. They did not take into account, the income and
the business of companies like Jaya Publications, Sasi
Enterprises, Anjaneya Printers and Metal Kings. That
information known to Nallamma Naidu. He does not know
that whether nine cases are pending against the accused
for taking loans in the banks. In those companies, the
share holders are entitled only for share and are not the
owners of the company properties. Whether they knew
this legal detail, Nallamma Naidu can answer for this. It is
not correct to say that the valuation was not done
according to their department rules. He made sure that
the investigation carried out was according to our
department rules. Regarding the property when they
asked explanation from the first respondent why they did
not point out the properties mentioned in the attached list
and question, for this only Nallamma Naidu can give
answer. Only Nallamma Naidu should say why separate
notices were not sent to every accused seeking
explanation about the property details. The property of
the minor Vivek was joined in this case and that was not
brought to his notice. He knew that the 4th accused was a
widow. It is not correct to say that he enquired the 4th
accused for many hours and many days. It is not correct
to say that he enquired the 4th accused. He treated her
vulgarly 4th accused and threatened her. He heard that
the husband of the 4th accused died of electrical shock in
Hyderabad. It is not correct to say that he threatened the
4th accused to write and give that Selvi Jayalalitha was the
reason for the death of her husband who died in the
electrical shock. It is wrong to state that since she did not
listen to my words. He implicated her as an accused in
this case. After his retirement on 31.1.2000 only once he
rejoined service for six months and worked on this case.
It is not correct to say that he has filed the FIR in this case
and he has supervised the investigation due to political
vendetta. It is not correct to say that the Ex.Chief Minister
Thiru M.Karunanidhi, Ex.Law Minister Thiru Madavan and
ADGP Thiru Kumaraswamy used to meet every Saturday in
Chief Minister's house and discussed about the case and
they advised to him as to how to run the case and that
they filed a false case. In this case, the charge sheet was
sent through him to their department director. They had
taken the legal advice of the Senior Advocate Thiru
Natarajan for the investigation and filing the charge sheet
in this case.

He knew that the 3rd accused was an MBA graduate.
He does not know that if the 3rd accused had run the Super
Duper TV Company and produced many programs and out
of this earned money. It is not correct to say that during
enquiry the 3rd accused told in front of him that Super
Duper Company produced program to the Sun TV in 1994
and through this the Super Duper Company earned one
lakh and twenty five thousand. It is not correct to say that
the 3rd accused during enquiry told in front of him that he
gave professional advice how to run cable TV and used to
get income out of this. It did not come to his notice if
Nallamma Naidu enquired the 3rd opponent regarding his
private income. He does not know that if the 3rd accused
told Nallamma Naidu that through the Super Duper TV (P)
Ltd., Co., the 3rd accused received Rs.5,000/- from more
than 1000 members and out of this he gave the cable
connection and earned income. He knew about the
marriage of the 3rd accused with Shivaji Ganeshan's grand
daughter Sathyalakshmi. It is not correct to say that, the
details regarding marriage expenditure, the details of the
pass books and the accounts given by the bride's family to
Nallamma Naidu were concerned. He does not know that
whether Nallamma Naidu enquired the details of the
marriage gift articles and he filed this account. He knew
that the 3rd accused father Thiru Vivekanandan was a Rural
Development Department Additional Director and has
social status. It is not correct to say that the properties
and income of the 3rd accused before 1.7.91 were not
accounted properly. No written evidence was filed to show
the 3rd accused was the foster son of the first accused. It
is not correct to say that because of political enmity to file
case on the first accused the 3rd accused was also joined.
For this he became an instrument in the hands of the
Government. It is not correct to say that we joined the
third opponent as an accused in this case because he did
not listen to our threatened words and turned against Selvi
Jayalalitha as an approver. The third accused is not
related through blood to the first accused. It is not correct
to say that even though they came to know during
investigation that six months before the marriage of the
3rd accused, from the bride's house, they had given gift
amount out of which he purchased the property, we had
hide this information.

PW.242 - Jagannathan, PW.243 - Krishna Rao T,
PW.244 - Vishwanathan C.P., PW.245 - Janarthanam,
PW.246 - Paul Devadoss T, PW.247 - Radhakrishnan S.,
PW.248 - Vasantha V., PW.249 - M. Suresh Kumar,
PW.250 - Karunakaran , PW.251 - Shankar G., PW.252
- Shanmuga Velandi , PW.253 - Natarajan K.P., PW.255
- Anbu Chezhian, PW.256 - Kadhiresan R., are all Police
Officers of the Anti Corruption Department.

PW.254 - Dellirajan has deposed that he was working as
Assistant in Head Office of Tamil Nadu Housing Board
Development Corporation. 12 video cassettes were seized
and prepared a mahazar. He affixed his signature on the
mahazar. Video cassettes were of V.N. Sudhakaran's
marriage function. He identifies 12 cassettes and they
were marked as MO.1603.

PW.257- K.R. Somasundaram has deposed that he was
working as Senior Assistant in Tamilnadu Industrial
Investment Corporation Limited. Police prepared a
mahazar in respect of vehicle. Bus was having five rooms.
First room consists of kitchen and gas stove, second room
was a dining room, third room was bathroom, fourth room
was bedroom and fifth room was driver's room and entire
bus was air conditioned.

During cross examination he states that the Police
did not write anything and took his signature from the
spot.

PW.258 - S.N.Prasad has deposed that he was working as
Junior Assistant in Tamilnadu Housing Board. On
5.1.1996, at 10.30 am, he accompanied Police and PWD
Engineer to house No.213, St. Mary's Road, Chennai.
House was in a dilapidated condition. Ex.P676-valuation
report. Then they went to No.18, 3rd Street, East
Abhirampuram, Mylapore, Chennai. There was a
basement. They went inside. Momentos were kept inside
the room. Ex.P2281 mahazar was prepared.

PW.259 - N. Nallamma Naidu deposed that he was a
Retired Police Vigilance Officer of Tamil Nadu Police
Department. He was appointed to work under the Deputy
Chief of Anti Corruption and Vigilance Department.
PW.240 Lathika Saran and PW.232 Dr. Subramanian
Swamy had filed a petition at Chennai Metropolitan Special
Court on 14.6.96 under
section 200
Cr.PC. PW.240 Lathika
Saran was ordered to enquire according to
section 202
of
Cr.PC. He was authorized to help PW.240. 12 Police
Officers were given power by PW.240 under
sections 17

and
of Prevention of Corruption Act. Thus, he along
with other officers were directed to assist the investigation,
collect documents related to this case from Banks, financial
institutions, revenue department, Enforcement Office and
office of the registration, institutions. He examined
PW.232 Dr. Subramanian Swamy in presence of PW.240 in
their office recorded his statement. He examined and
recorded statement of PW.187 - Pulikesi. PW.240 was
appointed to supervise the enquiry. PW.241 - V.C.
Perumal filed FIR on 18.9.96 in Crime No.13/AC/HQ/1996
under
section 13
[2] read with
section 13
[1][E] of

Prevention of Corruption Act
. He was appointed as
Investigating Officer by PW.241 - V.C. Perumal. Apart
from him, there were 16 Police Officers. He allotted the
officers appointed under
sections 17
and
of Prevention
of Corruption Act and assigned with work on the territorial
jurisdiction. PW.256 and he formed a Committee under
Deputy Vigilance Officer Mr. Kadiresan and sent it to Jedi
Metla in Andhra Pradesh, Pesipet, Fazilabad and some
other places to find out further details whether Accused
No.1 had property and buildings. He examined
Sundaravadanam, Elder Brother of Accused No.2. He
applied to the Government to form an Expert Committee
for valuing the property and buildings pertaining to this
case. He interrogated Accused Nos. 3 and 4 in this case.
On 1.10.96, 4.10.96 and 7.10.96 he examined and
recorded statement of many witnesses. He obtained
permission from the Court to inspect 76 places related to
this case. The orders under
Sections 17
and
of
Prevention of Corruption Act was given to him by PW.241
on 18.9.96. They are at Ex.P2308 and Ex.P2309. He sent
a letter to the Government to inform him about the salary
and allowances of Accused No.1. He also asked information
relating to the tenure as MLA, Chief Minister, details of her
declaration about her assets and property and the
activities of the companies run by the Accused No.1. He
recorded statement of witnesses Sundaravadanam on
23.9.96.
He further deposed he wrote a letter to the
Registration Department to appoint a Committee with
Officer of the rank of District Collector to investigate the
matters relating to wealth. He also wrote a letter to Chief
Auditor, Chennai to send a Committee to financial
institutions to examine and collect information of
registration of properties. On 3.10.96, he went to the
Commissioner of Income Tax Department and collected
information regarding PW.213 - Seetharaman and PW.215
- Selvaraj. On 4.10.96, he read the approved plans
related to these buildings from the Corporation of Chennai.
On 5.10.96, he read the files related to construction on
lands related to this case. The plan for most of the
constructions were drawn by the same person and he had
applied for sanction. He wrote a letter to Rayapettah
Benefit Fund and received some details about Accused
No.4. Accused No.4 has taken loan from them. On
8.10.96, he wrote a letter to Chennai Road Transport
Corporation asking for details of vehicles related to this
case. On 9.10.96, he collected information from the banks
about the loans taken by the Accused. From 74 places,
the Committee conducted searches. On 15.10.96, two
committees were constituted to estimate the buildings. On
25.10.96, two other committees were sent for assessing
the buildings and they continued the assessment work of
valuing the buildings. Some documents were seized from
SIDCO. He obtained search warrant one to search No.36,
Poes Gardens and another to search Jedi Metla, Faizabad
in Rangareddy District of Andhra Pradesh. On 7.12.96, he
came to know that Accused No.1 of this case was arrested
in another case. He went to Chennai office of Chennai City
Commissioner with his offices and witnesses and met
Seerayaperumal, Deputy Superintendent of Police under
whose custody Accused was and presented a letter to meet
Accused No.1. He permitted him to meet Accused No.1.
Accused No.1 was arrested and kept in separate cell. He
met her and introduced himself and explained that he had
a search warrant from Chennai Metropolitan Principal
Sessions Judge, to conduct search at her residence and
wanted her to send representatives on her behalf during
the search. She agreed to it and sent Mr. Bhaskaran and
Mr. Vijayan to help him in conducting the search. On
7.12.96 at 12.30 pm he along with Committee went to
No.36, Poes Garden and met Mr. Bhaskaran,
representative of Accused No.1. During the search, he
prepared three inventory mahazars and one seizure
mahazar. During the search, gold jewellery, diamond
jewellery and silver articles were valued by PW.125 -
Vasudevan from the Customs Department and prepared
the valuation list of articles. Sarees, chappals, suitcases
and watches were valued. PW.131 - Jerold Wilson and its
Committee valued chappals. On 18.12.96, PW.130 -
Maran and its Committee brought 91 watches to their
office and prepared a report as per Ex.P740. On 12.12.96,
valuable jewels were kept in separate room and sealed and
key was given to Bhaskaran. PW.125 - Vasudevan who
has valued the jewels on 20.12.96 and 21.12.96 also
valued silver articles and mahazar was drawn. The silver
articles were not seized but were kept in No.36, Poes
Garden in a separate room under lock and key and handed
over the key to Mr. Bhaskaran. The Tamil Nadu Special
Branch Police arranged for taking photographs of articles
related to this case. On his request, Chennai District
Collector has sent two witnesses PW.126 - Krishnamurthy
and Mr. Mangasahayan to help in conducting search of
No.36, Poes Garden. Letters were sent to Chief Engineer
[Buildings] and the Customs officials to be present at the
time of assessment and on that basis the valuators came
and valued house No.36, Poes Garden. The articles seized
on 12.12.96 from MO.609 and 754 and documents and
other articles were submitted to the Court.
He further deposed on 4.12.96, he sent letters to his
colleagues to find out details about the demand drafts sent
as birthday gift to Accused No.1. They were sent to
Vellore, Kancheepuram, Cuddalore, Trinelveli, Salem,
Dharmapuri, Trichy, Madurai and some other Districts. He
also recorded voluntary statement of Accused No.1. From
his investigation and statement and going through the
documents, it was revealed that Accused Nos. 2 to 4 were
in collaboration with Accused No.1 and have involved in
criminal conspiracy and amassed properties
disproportionate to their income. So he lodged a petition
before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge to include
Accused Nos. 2 to 4 as Criminals and that petition was
marked as Ex.P2316. On 23.1.97, he arrested Accused
No.3 in Palani and recorded her statement. He went to
Apollo Hospital and recorded statement of Accused No.2 on
3.2.97, 4.2.97 and from 6th to 8th February 1997. He
recorded statement of witnesses, namely, A.R. Rahaman
and Mandolin Srinivas. They returned gifts and articles
given to them along with invitation for wedding of Accused
No.3 which are MO.P1404 - silver plate, MO.P1405 -
kumkum casket, MO.P1406 - silk saree. On 21.2.97, he
scrutinized some documents of the shareholders of some
companies of the Accused. On 24.2.97, PW.256 -
Kadiresan R., submitted a report for having received
Sirudavaur's property documents and also submitted a
report for having examined a witness. He further deposed,
on 14.2.96, he made arrangements to value jewels of
Sathyalakshmi. PW.242 - Jaganathan P along with
PW.125 - Vasudevan went and secured jewels of
Sathyalakshmi from him and assessed them and gave a
report. These jewels were handed over to Giri. He
examined PW.201 - Vidyasagar and recorded his
statement. On 14.3.97, he sent PW.242 to Mumbai with a
committee to make enquiries about construction. PW.252
enquired about ancestral property and other properties of
Accused Nos. 2 to 4. He fixed the check period as 1.7.91
to 30.4.96 and keeping this period in mind, he prepared
the statements 1 to 7. Annexure-1 is the assessment at
the beginning of the check period i.e., assessment as on
1.7.91. Annexure-2 is assessment at the end of the check
period i.e., as on 30.4.96 and it was found that Accused
No.1 has amassed assets worth Rs.62,25,20,896/-
disproportionate to his income. He went personally and
handed over letter to Accused No.1. He asked Accused
No.1 to give explanation within 15 days. On 14.4.97, he
has taken certified letter of acceptance from Accused No.1
Ex.P2318. He further deposed, he went to Apollo Hospital
and interrogated Accused No.2 and recorded her voluntary
statement. Thereafter, the corrected property statements
were sent along with letter dated 30.5.97 to the Governor
through Government of Tamilnadu. Then, on 3.6.97, he
got letter dated 2.6.97 from Governor granting permission.

He further deposed, in the year 1960, Accused No.1
and her mother instituted 'Natya Kala Nikethan', a dance
institute and by acting in films they earned their wealth.
N.R. Sandhya made a Will on 1.11.97 and died on the next
day i.e., on 2.11.97. Accused No.1 bequeathed the
properties mentioned in the Will. Thereafter, till 1987,
apart from the properties mentioned in the Will, 3.143
acres of wet land at Cheyyur, 2 cars, shares in financial
institutions and to the extent of Rs.1 lakh in the Bank
account was there. Accused No.1 as an MLA brought some
properties. Accused No.2 also lived in No.36, Poes Garden
from 1988 with Accused No.1. Then Jaya Publications, Sasi
Enterprises and Namadhu MGR companies were
established by Accused Nos. 1 and 2. When Jaya
Publications was started, partners were Accused Nos. 1
and 2. In the beginning, Jaya Publications was started in a
Kalyana Mantapam of PW.157 - Ilangovan. The above
three companies has opened their bank accounts in Canara
Bank, Kelleys Branch and in that Bank loan was availed for
machines and other materials. That loan has not been
cleared till 1990. Accused No.2 has no income from her
ancestral property. Her husband Natarajan was a
Government Servant in the Govt. Information Department.
He joined services in 1970 and retired in 1998. During his
period, he got various promotions. Mr. Natarajan also did
not have considerable income through ancestral
properties. The father of Accused No.2 had 7.05 acres of
land and a house. His children were Sundaravadhanam,
Vinodhagan, Jayaraman, Vanithamani, Sasikala and
Divakar. Sri. Vivekanandan worked as Medical Practitioner.
Accused No.3 has studied in the 'New College' till 1992.
He was also residing in No.36, Poes Garden from 1992. He
had no individual income. Accused No.3 was son of
Vanithamani who is elder sister of Sasikala. The father of
Accused No.3 T. Vivekanandan worked as District
Development Officer and retired. Accused No.4 was wife
of Jayaraman. Jayaraman has worked in Tamilnadu Civil
Supplies Department. On 19.12.91, when he was working
in the vineyard of the Hyderabad, he was electrocuted and
died. Accused No.4 along with her children came to Poes
Garden. Accused No.4 has no private source of income.
From 1987 to 1991, Accused No.2 acquired some assets.
Further, some properties were purchased during the above
said period in the name of Jaya Publications and Sasi
Enterprises. In the name of Accused No.1, 3 cars were
bought. In the year 1985, Accused No.1 deposited Rs.1
lakh as fixed deposit in 'Kothari Orient Finance
Corporation'. In the same company, in 1991, Accused
No.1 had deposited two fixed deposits of Rs. 1 lakh each.
Further, in the year 1989, Accused No.1 had deposited
Rs.3 lakhs in fixed deposit with Sriram Finance
Corporation. In the same year, Accused No.1 had
deposited Rs.5 lakhs as fixed deposit. Further, in the year
1990 - Rs.7 lakhs, 1991 - Rs.20 lakhs were deposited by
Accused No.1 in the same Corporation. Accused No.1 had
deposited Rs.3 lakhs in fixed deposit in Central Bank of
India, Secunderabad. In the year 1990, Accused No.1 has
deposited Rs.10 lakhs in Madurai Bank as fixed deposit.
Totally, as on 1.7.91 the value of the assets of Accused
Nos.1 and 2 was Rs.2,01,83,957/-. Out of the said
amount, Rs.5 lakhs fixed deposit is shown in two places
which should be deducted.
He further deposed, on the occasion of wedding
reception of Accused No.3, pandal and decorations, chairs,
decorative structures has to be valued by PWD. PW.181 -
Thangaraj, PW.200 - K.P. Muthuswamy valued the same
and submitted a report. From 1.7.91 to 30.1.96, Accused
Nos. 2 to 4 were residing at No.36, Poes Garden. During
that period, Accused Nos. 2 and 4 have already floated
four companies, besides 32 other companies were also
floated. The companies address were mentioned as No.36,
Poes Garden. Most of the companies started by them had
no business transaction and are not maintaining accounts.
Companies did not send yearly report to the commercial
tax department and other departments. The above
companies had not submitted annual reports to the
Income Tax Department.

He has further deposed that there had been lot of
mutual money transaction from the account of accused
persons and their companies. These amounts which were
transacted mutually were used to buy properties and make
fixed deposits. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had not filed income
tax returns from 1987 to 1992. In November 1992,
Accused Nos. 1 and 2 have paid income tax arrears.
Accused Nos.3 and 4 have not filed annual income tax
statements upto 1997. During this time, Accused No.1 has
purchased properties in her name and in the name of other
Accused, namely, Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4. During this
period, marriage of Accused No.3 was conducted in a
grand manner by Accused No.1. Therefore, he construed
this period as check period. The properties acquired by
Accused No.1 during this period were already mentioned in
the second statement. Item Nos. 1 to 17 are mentioned in
the second statement. The following items in the second
statement are immovable properties. They are 18 to 23,
25 to 30, 32, 34 to 63, 65, 67 to 69, 71, 73, 75 to 91, 93
to 126, 128 to 144, 148, 149, 151 to 158, 160, 165, 167
to 172, 175 and 305. Item Nos.24, 31, 33, 64, 66, 70, 72,
74, 92, 127, 145, 146, 147, 150, 159, 166, 173 and 174
are related documents found in the second statement.
Item Nos.230 to 257 are value of the vehicles. As the
correct value of item Nos. 275 and 276 were not shown,
their value is not shown in items 1 and 2. Item 281 was
general in items 1 and 2. Item 292 was allotted to
Accused No.3. Item Nos. 293 to 294 were estimated by
Engineer Mariappan. Item 295 is golden ornament
presented at the marriage of Accused No.3. The
documents were examined and exact value was estimated.
Item 301 is building in Trichy which was brought by
Accused No.2 and an additional construction constructed
on it. By valuing additional construction, they ascertained
the worth of it. Item 302 details were already mentioned
in 75 to 77 items. They have to be deleted from this
value. In this way, for the items mentioned in the 2nd
statement, the valuation has been calculated at
Rs.66,44,73,537.27/-. From this account, if the amount to
be deleted, the balance amount is Rs.66,30,30,070.73/-.
During the check period, accused persons earned total
assets worth Rs.64,28,46,114.20/-. Details of income of
accused persons from 1.7.91 to 30.4.96 is furnished in the
3rd statement. Items 1 to 8 were loan taken from Indian
Bank, Abhiramapuram Branch. Item No.9 is loan availed
by Accused No.1 from Canfin Homes. Items from 10 to
32, 35, 36, 37, 39, 41 to 44, 49, 50 and 56 were interest
amount. Item 33 is income from Hyderabad grape
vineyard. Item 34 is rental income from Door No.36, Sree
Nagar Colony, Hyderabad. Item No.40 is the rental
income from Door No.16, Radhika Colony, Secunderabad
house for the 2nd Accused. Item 45 is the rental income
from the vehicles of the 3rd Accused. Item No.48 is the
rental income from the vehicles for Accused No.4. Item 46
is the commission for the 3rd accused from the fixed
deposits of Accused No.1. Though it is stated as Rs.3
lakhs in the statement, the real amount was Rs.1,85,500/-
only. Item 47 is the loan amount from Royapetai Benefit
Fund for the Accused No.4. Item 52 is rental income from
Indo-Doha Company. From the amount rent paid to
SPICOT Rs.7,57,000/- should be deducted. Item Nos. 53
to 55, 57 to 62 were rental income. The total amount in
the 3rd statement is Rs.9,34,26,053.58/-. In the 4th
Statement, the amount shown is expenditure amount of
accused persons. Item Nos. 1 to 8 is the interest amount
paid on the loans taken. Items 9 to 19 are amount paid to
Chennai Corporation. Item No.20 is the amount paid for
getting permission for construction of buildings, Chennai
Metropolitan Development Corporation. Item No.21 is the
amount paid for demolition of Door No.213, St. Mary's
Road, Mandoveli. Item No.23 is the amount of repayment
towards the loan of the 4th Accused. Items 23 to 35, 37 to
44, 46 to 54, 56 to 149, 151 to 176, 191 to 224, 231 to
234 are transferred amount from the bank account of the
Accused to other persons. Item No.236 is the amount paid
to LIC by the Accused No.2. Item No.45 is the amount
paid to get SPIC Jyothi Dealership to Jayaraman from the
account of Accused No.2. Item No.150 is the amount paid
to PW.238 - Anandha Padmanabhan. Items 178 to 180,
182 to 193 were amount paid to income tax and property
tax by Accused No.1. Items 194 to 198 were the amount
paid towards income tax and property tax by Accused
No.2. Item 225 are details of the salary paid to maid
servants working in Accused No.1's house. Item 226 is the
expenditure amount of marriage expenses of Accused
No.3. Item 227 is expenditure amount paid towards
building of Kodanadu Tea Estate. Item 228 is the amount
paid to Kannappan for buying marbles. Items 229, 230,
236 to 243 are the amounts paid towards electricity bill of
the Accused No.1. Item 235 is the amount paid towards
upholstery of vehicles to Mohan. Item 244 is additional
amount paid to item 83 in the 2nd statement. The total
amount in the 4th statement is Rs.11,56,56,833.41/-. The
amount of Rs.44,341.35/- paid towards Vijaya Sales
Service and Rs.9,73,452/- to Devar Automobiles,
Rs.4,84,712/- to Kumaran Silks and Rs.20 lakhs for James
Fedrick [PW.93] are the amounts which should be included
in it. The amount shown in the 7th statement is the
amount disproportionate to the income of Accused No.1
which she accumulated with the help of other Accused
persons. PW.16 and PW.75 were treated as hostile.
During cross examination, he states that in the year
1961 he joined as Sub Inspector of Police in the Police
Department. During his service when Sarkaria
Commission was formed against Thiru Karunanidhi, he was
one among the many officers appointed towards it. As the
matter is still pending, he cannot say details on which he
worked. Investigations on that case went on from 1977 to
1980. He denies suggestion put to him that he became
very acquainted with Thiru Karunanidhi during this
investigation. His son Saravanan is the lawyer by
profession in Chennai. His son Saravanan was Junior of
Mr. Jawaharlal who is appointed as Govt. Prosecutor. Mr.
Jawaharlal apart from this investigation, had represented
as Govt. Prosecutor in three other cases filed. In this case,
his son might have come to this Court to assist Mr.
Jawaharlal who worked as a Government Prosecutor. He
denies suggestion put to him that team of investigating
officers are none other than DMK Sympathisers. He also
denies suggestion cases against Selvi Jayalalitha was
continued for purpose of political vendetta. For this case,
one Inspector General of Police, one Superintendent of
Police, two Deputy Superintendent of Police, 9 Inspectors
and 50 Police Constables were appointed from their
Department. Besides, a few officials and Police personnel
from Chennai were appointed to assist in this case.
Further, some Police officers from Kancheepuram were
also called for investigation. For this case, about 150
Police Officers were appointed. His regular superannuation
is on 31.10.97. He was given one year extension upto
31.10.98, again upto 31.10.99. Third time extension of
his service was upto 31.10.2000. After that from
1.11.2000 to 30.4.2001 he was reappointed and further
extension given from 1.5.2001 to 31.10.2001. But due to
ill health, he declined extension of his service. He
requested to relieve him on 14.5.2001. He took Deputy
Superintendent and a Women Inspector along with him. He
interrogated Accused No.4. He examined and recorded
statements of P. Chokkalingam. Till 18.9.99, investigation
according to
section 202
of Cr.PC, 300 witnesses were
enquired and their statements were recorded. Further,
before 18.9.1996 most of the documents relating to this
case were seized. The witness list and list of documents
collected till 18.9.96 were not submitted to the court of
Special Principal Sessions Judge. Further, he did not
submit a report of statement of witnesses and documents
which they have collected to the Court. He submitted a
report to the Director of their Department stating that he
had been assisting the Chief Investigating Officer PW.240
- Lathika Saran from 1.7.96 to 7.9.96. Subsequently, he
was appointed as Chief Investigating Officer. Till 7.9.96,
he has not expressed in writing to PW.240 that they should
file FIR in this case. He has taken permission from the
court to conduct search in Districts and other States.
According to
sections 17
and
of Prevention of
Corruption Act, the power was given to him and other
officers. Letter was sent to Banks for freezing the
accounts of Accused Nos. 2 to 4. He examined
Sundaravadhanam on 23.9.96 and 27.9.96 and recorded
his statement. PW.256 - Kadiresan R., was sent to
Hyderabad to make enquiries about grape vineyard. He
considers Door No.36 as part of Door No.31A of Poes
Garden. Door No.31 has been assessed separately for
taxes. During investigation, he found that Door No.31A
existed before 6.12.96. The value of suitcases inspected in
No.36, Poes Garden has not been included in the
statement items 1 to 4 pertaining to this case. He denies
suggestion that he brought articles from outside and
planted them in the house at the time of search on that
day to inflate the number of things in the list. He also
denies suggestion that video tape recording and photos
were taken by him. Generally they do not arrest persons
involved in disproportionate wealth case. In this case,
Accused No.3 has been arrested. Besides, Accused Nos. 1
and 2 have been arrested. Accused No.1 was arrested in
connection with some other case. The house at Door
No.36, Poes Garden has ground floor area measuring
2,500 sq. feet. First floor building over the same ground
floor may have an area of more than 2,500 sq. feet. He
received treatment at Apollo Hospital. Tamilnadu
Government has spent about Rs.88,000/-. He denies
suggestion put to him that Tamilnadu Government has
spent money in excess of the medical expenses payable
under the pension scheme. He denies suggestion put to
him that Tamilnadu Government took keen interest in his
treatment so as to reward him for the zeal with which he
has conducted in this case filed against Selvi Jayalalitha.
During his interrogation of Selvi Jayalalitha in Chennai
Central Jail on 31.12.96, she gave a letter that she needed
her jewels and watch for daily use. She stated that she no
longer needed those articles since this had been publicized
in the newspapers. According to their departmental rules,
they did not disclose the matter relating to investigation.
They themselves have estimated the value of sarees,
chappals jewels. On 18.12.96, watches were valued at
their office. It is not correct to state that he has given the
value as per Ex.P712 so that when experts later value
them should fix the value given by them. The 4th
paragraph of Ex.P2266 states that 2nd to 4th accused
persons are Benamis for Accused No.1. Even though one of
the witnesses was willing to turn approver, he did not
acquiesce. On 15.4.97, letter of explanation was sent to
Accused No.1 and statement pertaining to amount of
Rs.62,25,20,896/-. On 30.4.97, a letter was written to get
permission from the Governor. The amount mentioned in
that letter is Rs.66,65,20,395/-. In the letter addressed to
the Governor difference amount was not stated as
mentioned because reply for letter dated 15.4.97 at the
time of enquiry in the court was not furnished and she has
told that she will give explanation in the court. This was
not disclosed in the charge sheet. They did not seek
explanation from Accused Nos. 2 to 4 about their property
details by sending 1 to 7 statements as they are not
Government servants. He has not told PW.125 -
Vasudevan to estimate the value of the jewels as per the
prices on any particular date. While valuing, independent
persons are not taken as witnesses to value sarees,
chappals, jewels, they have selected Government Officials.
PW.180 and PW.145 are independent witnesses. On
9.5.97, Mr. Ashokan, Deputy Superintendent and on
10.5.97, Mr. Dhakshanamurthy, Deputy Superintendent
were examined and their statements were recorded.
Statements recorded by him after 30.4.97 has not been
sent to the Governor. He deposed that forest officials may
have given a report regarding their proceeding. They
should give it to the Engineers to value the buildings which
they might have included it in the building violation. PWD
Engineers assessed the buildings, Electrical Engineers
assessed the electrical fittings. In the Statements 1 to 7
submitted in this case, they have not mentioned how many
jewels, footwears, sarees and watches belonging to each
of the Accused i.e., Accused Nos. 2 to 4. He has sent
statement of 399 witnesses examined prior to 18.9.96 to
the Court. His Director has contacted the income tax
officials and obtained many details and documents from
them. In this connection, he has also gone to the Income
Tax office who is aware of the fact that team comprising of
Central PWD personnel belonging to the IT Department
have inspected and assessed Door No.36, Poes Garden. At
present he cannot exactly say when the assessment of
Door No.36, Poes Garden, took place. He came to know
that Central PWD Team has done assessment before
concluding his investigation. He did not know the sum at
which CPWD estimated the value. He denies the
suggestion that they have not disclosed their transaction
as it is less than their assessment. The property located at
Jedi Metla, Andhra Pradesh was assessed by PW.98 -
Velayudhan and his Committee. He does not know as per
which State Government rates the assessment was done.
He was not aware that Central PWD Department has
valued the construction work in Jedi Metla, Andhra
Pradesh. It was found that Accused No.2 has paid income
tax from 1985 onwards. Ex.P712 does not mention total
weight of jewels on 18.12.96. The newspapers, 'The
Hindu', 'Dhinakaran' and 'Dinamani' published photographs
of jewels and silver articles found in Selvi Jayalalitha's
house and stated that this information was given to them
by Anti Corruption Bureau. In Ex.P2327, item No.1 was
acquired on 15.7.67, item No.2 was acquired on 11.12.67,
item No.3 was purchased on 10.6.68, item No.4 was
purchased on 25.10.68, item No.5 was purchased on
14.12.81, item No.6 was purchased on 17.4.89, item No.7
was purchased on 18.6.89, item No.8 was purchased on
5.7.89, item No.9 was purchased on 29.9.89, item No.10
was purchased on 10.7.89, item No.11 was purchased on
3.4.90, item Nos.12, 13 and 14 were purchased on
19.4.90, item No.15 was purchased on 3.5.90, item No.16
was purchased on 12.7.90 and item No.17 was purchased
on 8.12.90. Item No.6 is the property which was bought
by Accused No.2. Item Nos.7 and 17 belongs to Jaya
Publications, while item Nos. 8 and 9, 12 to 14, 16 are
properties owned by Sasi Enterprises. Item No.15 was
owned by Accused No.2, Item Nos. 1 to 4 are properties
owned and bought by the Accused No.1 and her mother.
Item Nos. 5, 10 and 11 properties were owned by Accused
No.1. In Tamil Nadu politics, respective party workers and
ordinary people generally present the articles cash or
cheques on the birthdays of party leader by way of gifts.
From examination of 75 witnesses and 112 documents, it
has been recorded that sum of Rs.1,94,50,012/- was
received through demand draft as birthday gifts from Selvi
Jayalalitha on 24.1.92. Further, on that birthday, a gift of
Rs.15 lakhs in cash was given to Accused No.1. Ex.P2337
is another record within Ex.P2334. It is shown in this
record that Rs.29 lakhs was received as gifts in the year
1991. In the same period, the income tax returns of the
Accused No.2 shows that equivalent of Rs.51,47,951/- was
in American dollars received as gift from abroad.
Ex.P2338 is the income tax return submitted for the period
ending 31.3.92 on behalf of Accused No.2. The records
contained therein is Ex.P2339. Jaya Publications, Sasi
Enterprises, Vinodh Video Vision and Namadhu MGR are
companies that were started well before 1.7.91 itself. He
does not know whether Namadhu MGR daily is the official
newspaper of AIADMK. He has read Namadhu MGR. From
that he cannot say it belongs to or related to AIADMK
Party. It is a private joint firm with one of the Accused as
partners. Namadhu MGR was set up before 1.7.91. He is
aware that this organization runs current account No.1952
from Canara Bank, Mylapore Branch. PW.201 - Vidyasagar
has stated that as on 30.6.91, the account balance was
Rs.5,51,826.94/-. He examined PW.201 on 13.3.97,
14.3.97, 17.3.97 and 27.3.97. While recording statement,
he informed that there is deposit of Rs.10,000/- and above
in current account No.1952 and total balance was
Rs.7,54,46,179/-. The amount received is in the form of
demand draft in current account No.1952, Canara Bank,
Mylapore Branch. The Manager of Namadhu MGR is Mr.
Balaji. Though he enquired and recorded his statements,
he was not examined in the court. He has not seized the
Administrative registers of various records of this
organization from 1.7.91 to 30.4.96 because those records
were taken by the Income Tax Officials. He did not seize
them. He did not make request in writing for these
records from the Income Tax Department. He did not ask
them to provide attested copies of those records as per
Rule 6 of their department. They have right to get
documents and records from the Income Tax Department.
He does not remember whether he asked in writing for the
records of Namadhu MGR to be submitted. He has not
made representation to Accused Nos. 1 and 2, partners of
Namadhu MGR to present all records relevant to these
organizations.
He does not know about the value of assessment
done by the Central PWD through Central Income Tax
Department for Door Nos. 36 and 31A. He denies
suggestion put to him for the development of Namadhu
MGR Newspaper, number of plans were made and different
amount thus collected. He denies suggestion that the plans
that were made for developing Namadhu MGR and funds
consequently raised were all during the check period and
have been taken into account by the Income Tax
Department. His investigation does not disclose his income
that was generated from Namadhu MGR through
publications of advertisements during the check period.
There are no subscribers for the Namadhu MGR
newspapers. He does not have the total amount they have
earned through sale of newspapers through shops. Mr. P.
Chokkalingam, Internal Audit Officer and Deputy Director
helped him during investigation. He has audited the
income and expenditure of 26 firms related to this case.
He submitted individual report. This officer, while
submitting a report for Jaya Publications has also included
details of the account of Namadhu MGR firm. Mr. P.
Chokkalingam was not examined as witness before the
Court. He denies the suggestion that Audit Report of Mr.
P. Chokkalingam for 26 firms was not submitted to the
Court. According to Auditor's report, Vinod Video Vision
operates current account No.2133 in Canara Bank,
Mylapore Branch. He does not remember whether the firm
Fax Universal commenced before the check period. Metal
King, Jaya Publications and Anjaneya Printers have all
carried out commercial transactions during the check
period. The question of examining the witnesses about
business activities did not arise because none of the above
companies maintained the accounts. He examined and
recorded statement of officers of the Commercial Tax
Department and collected documents in connection with
Jaya Publications. About the Metal King firm, he examined
the officers of Excise Department orally. He does not
know whether Metal King is registered with the Excise
Department. He does not remember whether Internal
Auditor and Deputy Director Thiru. P. Chokkalingam has
mentioned profit accounts in the report submitted for the
above firms. They came to know through investigation that
J.J. T.V. Pvt. Ltd., has taken a loan of Rs.1 Crore from the
Indian Bank, Abhirampuram Branch. The account of JJ TV
Pvt. Ltd., is not included in this case. In this case, as per
section 173[8] of
Cr.PC
, applications were submitted for
further investigation. In Ex.P712 price of a kilogram of
silver is not mentioned. Selvi Jayalalitha has paid income
tax and property tax from 1965 onwards while still a
minor. Ex.P2327 mentions that the Accused No.2 had
owned 62 types of jewels prior to the check period under
item No.45. But, the 62 types of jewels and its total
weight has not been mentioned in item No.45. In item
No.225, they have not mentioned names of drivers,
electricians, sweepers and cooks. Since the accounts
pertaining to Vinod Video Vision, Namadhu MGR, Jaya
Publications, Sasi Enterprises, Anjaneya Printers were not
maintained properly, their Department Auditor P.
Chokkalingam has not given separate statements for these
firms. It has come to light that Accused No.4 owns
cultivable lands in Peruga Vaznthan Village in Mannargudi
Taluk. The gift articles were not shown in the list among
items in Ex.P2327 to Ex.P2733. It was revealed through
his investigation that Accused Nos. 2 to 4 and their firm
have taken heavy loans from the bank. He knows that the
banks have instituted a case with Debt Recovery Tribunal
in connection with loans. He received letter from the
Director, Tamilnadu Information and Publicity Department
to query about money given for advertisements placed in
the daily, Namadhu MGR from 1.7.91 to 30.5.96. His
response is that amount thus obtained was
Rs.1,42,48,135/-. Ex.P2340 is the file relating to this
matter.
He examined family members of Mr. Sivaji Ganesan
about marriage of Accused No.3. He examined Mr.
Ramkumar. He has stated that he has opened an account
in State Bank of India, Gopalapuram Branch and spent
money from that account for the marriage. During
investigation, he has recorded his statement, he stated
that he has spent Rs.92 lakhs for the marriage. He also
examined Selvi Jayalalitha when she was in Central Jail
about the marriage expenses. She told that large portion
of marriage expenses were borne by bride's side and that
her contribution was minimum. Further, he examined Mr.
Prabhu, who stated that his elder brother Mr. Ramkumar
had borne marriage expenses of Accused No.3 as per the
wishes of his father. He also during investigation enquired
Accused No.3's father-in-law Mr. Narayanaswamy, his
individual expenses for the marriage were Rs.18,59,778/-
as stated by him. He denies suggestion that he conducted
meetings, prepared documents relating to this case were
shown to the then rulers and that he took their advice. He
denies suggestion that investigation was conducted as per
direction of the then rulers with a view to achieve political
vendetta. He denied suggestion that they have inflated
the assets valuation in the statement in order to give this
case a colossal dimension. He denies suggestion put to him
that in order to satisfy the ruling party, he has prepared
things by fabricating non existent details and by
suppressing details that might be useful to the accused.
He has not seen the letter of appreciation written by the
daily 'Murasoli' dated 6.2.2001. He denied suggestion put
to him that he interacted with five lawyers of DMK Party
who attended court on those days. He also denied the
suggestion that this case is being pursued for political
reasons and that the investigation and the case had been
launched at the behest of the then ruling party. He denied
suggestion that 48 persons were examined in connection
with the properties that have no bearing on the case in
order to make it appear gigantic. Mr. Valasarajan,
Inspector has seized documents while searching the
Wellington Plaza building. He knew the contents of the
seized documents. In that, item No.11 comprises 22 Nos.
of entry fee receipt book maintained by the firm Super
Duper TV Pvt. Ltd., and those 22 books have been
produced in the courts. The counterfoils of the receipts in
the books have been produced which shows each person
has paid Rs.5,000/-. Each receipt book has 100 leaves.
Those books are Ex.P2341. He denies suggestion that
amount mentioned in the above books Rs.1,10,00,000/- is
income of Super Duper TV. He denies suggestion that
amount was not included in the 3rd statement. The amount
got as loan was not shown as income of Accused No.3. He
does not know whether Accused No.3 is shareholder of JJ
TV. He denies suggestion put to him that he has
suppressed the details of Accused No.3 on the
apprehension that it may have adverse effect. Through
the Government advertisements, Namadhu MGR has got
Rs.1,42,48,155/- which can be treated as credits and not
as income. The dollars received from the foreign countries
which were enquired many times and for which the
documents were verified was not considered as income
because it is not a regular income of the accused. They
have not taken into account gifts and money given to Selvi
Jayalalitha which was not a regular income and have not
included it in this case. Ex.P2341 which has 22 books and
yielded Rs.1 Crore and Rs.10 lakhs has not been included
as income of the Accused No.3 the reason being that this
amount is shown in the bank accounts and in the
expenditure to run the company and as income and
expenditure account was not shown, this amount was not
taken as income of Accused No.3. The expenditure over
the marriage borne by Mr. Ramkumar is Rs.92 lakhs which
he had kept in Gopalapuram Bharath State Bank and Mr.
Narayanaswamy spent Rs.18 lakhs in his individual
capacity. Both these amounts were not included in this
case. Regarding profits from the advertisements in
Namadhu MGR, he did not examine any individual as
witness. The amount of Rs.3 lakhs American dollar had
come as a Bank document only. The above document has
been deposited in Canara Bank, Mylapore Branch in the
name of Accused No.1 with the approval of RBI. Though
he has enquired PW.93 many times, he has not recorded
his statement.
6. Statement of Accused Nos. 1 to 4 under

Section 313
of Cr.PC was recorded as under:

1,339 questions were put to Accused No.1. She has

answered these questions. For some questions, she has

answered she is not aware of it. For some questions, she

has stated it is true. During public functions, her party

men have presented momentos such as replica of two

leaves, sceptre, sword, crown. These items were received

in the capacity of General Secretary, AIADMK Party. They

are kept with her for safe custody. The momentos etc., is

of 3,365.80 grams of gold. The entire marriage

expenditure was borne by the bride's family. The marriage

took place on 7.9.95. The evaluation report prepared by

M.V. Thyagaraj was prepared only on 18.4.97 i.e., two

years after marriage. Hence, it is not a genuine report.

Mr. G. Ramakumar, maternal Uncle of the bride cited as

evidence in the charge sheet. The prosecution has not

examined him. K. Narayanswamy, father of the bride cited

as a charge sheet witness. He was also not examined by

the prosecution. They were deliberately omitted by the

prosecution even though they are only competent persons

to speak about the marriage expenses. Moreover, the
value given by the prosecution itself are highly discordant.

PW.181 is incompetent to evaluate or submit a report.

Some of the work was done and food was provided by her

party men voluntarily on their own accord. She has not

spent any money towards marriage has been accepted.

She would like to point out she was leading film

actress since 1964. She has acted in more than 120 films

in various languages. In each of her films, there were

used to be numerous scenes, sometimes, running more

than 100 and each scene would require many costumes

and some times more than ten costumes for every scene

as a leading lady. She has to change many costumes like

sarees or silver kameez with matching footwear,

accessories and watches etc. Once a particular item was

used, it was never used again and many of them were

retained by her as a momentos and this account for

accumulation of footwear. Hence, these items should not

have been valued at all. As a Chief Minister during check

period, she was not wearing any costly footwear at all.

Therefore, there was no question of bringing any new

footwear. The DVAC has taken into account of these

footwears to bolster the numerous and size footwear which
only shows that the seizure were effected just to defame

her. She has also submitted a petition to adduce Defence

evidence.

About 1,032 questions were put to Accused No.2.

She has also filed written statement. For some questions,

she has said true and for some questions she has stated

she does not know about it. She has also given some

explanation for some questions.

About 914 questions were put to Accused No.3. He

has filed written statement. For some questions, he has

said false and for some questions he has stated she does

not know about it. He has also given some explanation for

some questions.

About 650 questions were put to Accused No.4. For

some questions, she has said may be true and for some

questions she has stated she does not know about it.

7. The depositions of the defence witnesses are

extracted as under:

DW.1 - Ramkumar has deposed that his father's
name is Shivaji Ganesan. The third Accused is his elder
sister Shanthi's Son-in-law. On 7.9.1995, his elder sister
daughter Sathyalakshmi married to the third Accused in
MRC Nagar, Chennai. His father-in-law was alive. They
met the entire expenses of the marriage as they are
bride's family. For that marriage, they opened an account
in SB A/c. No.95071 in Gopalapuram Branch, State Bank
of India and remitted upto Rs.92 lakhs which was spent on
wedding expenses. Ex.D15 is Photostat copy of the
savings bank account pass book.

During his cross examination, he states that during
his sister's daughter marriage, he lived with his father. SB
Account was opened on 14.8.95. The account details do
not disclose that the amounts were spent for the marriage.
His elder sister Shanthi's husband name is
Narayanaswamy. He was working as a Professor in IIT,
Chennai. During investigation he gave details relating to
the marriage expenses.

DW.2 - Nadarajan deposed that he is a Chartered
Accountant. Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are his clients. Their
Auditors did not submit income tax returns even though
accounts were available for about two or three years.
Therefore, he was appointed as their Auditor. Selvi
Jayalalitha has obtained Rs.9 lakhs income through
agriculture in the year 1991. The agricultural income has
been obtained through cultivation of grapes from 16 acres
of land at Hyderabad. In that respect, Selvi Jayalalitha has
earned an amount of Rs.52,92,400/- till 30.4.1996. The
income tax officials personally supervised and estimated
the grape yard at Hyderabad and agreed that income tax
returns filed by Selvi Jayalalitha was correct. Ex.P16 is the
copy of the order released on 31.1.2002. Selvi Jayalalitha
has obtained Rs.68,94,386/- on account of fixed deposits
at Banks and financial companies till 30.4.96.
Rs.3,60,000/- was obtained as rent for flat No.36, Srinagar
colony, Hyderabad till 30.4.96. The house has been
brought by Selvi Jayalalitha in the year 1967.
Rs.2,69,50,012/- was obtained by Selvi Jayalalitha as
birthday gift and amounts till 30.4.96. This amount has
been accepted even by the Income Tax Department. Selvi
Jayalalitha has obtained income through shares in various
companies. Before 1.7.1997 itself, Selvi Jayalalitha being
shareholder of many companies obtained income through
those companies which are Jaya Publications and Sasi
Enterprises. In those companies, Selvi Jayalalitha was a
dormant shareholder while Thirumathi Sasikala has been
working partner. The main work of Jaya Publications is
printing and publication. Door No.7, Guindy Real Estate,
Door No.21, Pattammal Street, Mylapore,
Parameshwarinagar, Door No.11A, 3rd Cross, Adyar, Door
No.30, Luz Church Street, Mylapore, all belong to Jaya
Publications. Through that as rent obtained
Rs.45,30,642/-. Further, an income of Rs.62,45,465/- was
obtained till 30.4.96 through the lease of 64 acres
cultivated by Jaya Publications at Vizhuppuram District,
Koyyampakkam Village. This information has been
obtained in income tax return and has been accepted.
Further, through printing and publication, company has
obtained an income of Rs.4,78,71,368/- till 30.4.96.
Further, Namathu MGR Company, sister concern of Jaya
Publications obtained Rs.3,03,50,717/- as income till
30.4.96 through advertisement. Namathu MGR refers to
Daily of AIADMK Party. For the growth of that, daily funds
were collected. Many schemes were instituted. Under the
scheme, no interest was given for the deposits. For the
above said scheme, minimum Rs.12,000/- maximum
Rs.18,000/- should be paid through application. Ex.P17
series 3 is the duplicate account for Accused Nos. 1, 2 and
4 shows details of gold, diamond jewelleries and silver
articles.

He further deposed that properties owned by Sasi
Enterprises are shop No.14, Parson Manor, 602, Anna-
Salai, shop No.14 and 20, Qadar Nawaskhan Road,
Virugampakkam, the properties from 12 to 14 mentioned
in Ex.P238. 3.2 acres of wet land, Sundarakkoptai,
Tanjavore asset properties at No.18, 3rd Street, East
Abhirampuram - 28, Thiruvenkatanagara Colony,
Ambathur, Rajanagar, Neelangara. For the above
mentioned properties, till 1996, Rs.9,66,600/- was
obtained towards rent. Further, these enterprises by taking
40 acres of land at Koyyampakkam, Vizhuppuram District
for 2 years lease and obtained Rs.9,09,72,500/- as
income. That lease period was 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-
93. The advance given by this enterprise in 1990 has
come back in 1991-92 and 1992-93. That amounts to
Rs.17 lakhs. Further, this Enterprises has vailed loan of
Rs.25 lakhs in 1994-95 from Indian Bank, Abhirampuram.
In 1995-96 a sum of Rs.10 lakhs was availed from private
finances.
He further deposed Vinod Video Vision an
entertainment business was started by second Accused
and continued to run and this concern earned income of
Rs.96,92,238/- from 1.7.91 to 30.4.96.

He further deposed that Metalking Enterprises
Fabricators Steel items. This concern was started in the
year 1993. From then onwards, till 30.4.96 earned income
of Rs.42,38,769/-. Before 1.7.1996 itself, 2nd Accused has
made deposits in the bank though as interest an amount of
Rs.15,82,062/- was earned. The 2nd Accused through own
properties has earned Rs.8,58,500/- as rent from 1.7.91
till 30.4.96. The 2nd Accused has earned through land a
sum of Rs.5,85,825/- within the check period. 2nd Accused
gained Rs.51,47,955/- in terms of gifts between 1991 and
1992. The 2nd Accused has availed Rs.2,67,00,000/- as
loan from Bharani Beach Resorts for investments. 2nd
Accused has availed loan of Rs.45,55,00,000/- from
Bharani Beach Resorts for J. Farm House. In 1995-96,
from private finances, she availed a personal loan of Rs.15
lakhs from them and from the J. Farm House Rs.25 lakhs
as loan. The above information have been disclosed in the
income tax returns of the 2nd Accused. The 4th Accused
owns undivided 1/7th share out of 45 acres of wet land in
Manargudi Circle, Peruga-Vazhndar Village. Other than
that, 4th Accused owns 15 acres of wet land in
Neelamangalam region, Rishious Village. The 4th Accused
is remitting property tax from 1995 onwards. Ex.P18
series contains the Photostat copy of property returns of
4th Accused from 1985-86 to 1994-95. In that as shown
the 4th Accused owned 1,040 grams of gold jewellery from
1.7.91 till 30.4.96. The 4th Accused has earned
Rs.10,83,000/- through agriculture. Further, 4th Accused
has earned Rs.9,29,000/- through rent till 30.4.96. The
4th Accused has earned Rs.6,10,000/- till 30.4.96 as
commission for arranging the fixed deposits. Further, 4th
Accused has gratuity of her husband Rs.2,28,000/- has
been received. 4th Accused has availed loan of Rs.35 lakhs
from RBF Enterprises. 4th Accused has availed a loan of
Rs.15 lakhs from private finances. She availed Rs.58 lakhs
loan from Bharani Beach Resorts Enterprises. The 4th
Accused has received gifts from her five brothers which
amounts to Rs.10,60,000/- till 30.4.96.
He further deposed that Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd.,
has earned Rs.53,50,216/- through printing till 30.4.96.
Apart from this, by selling shares she earned
Rs.16,75,000/-. Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd., availed a loan
of Rs.95,66,011/- from Abhirampuram Indian Bank. Gopal
Promoters, Lakshmi Constructions and Shakti
Constructions all these enterprises had account in
Abhirampuram Indian Bank.
During his cross examination he states that he was
not Auditor for Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Accused told him
to give evidence in this case. The scheme as seen in
EX.P17 was instituted for growth of Namathu MGR. The
amount remitted for that scheme is refundable amount.
DW.3 - K. Rajendran, DW.4 - D. Nagarajan, DW.5 -
K. Sundaram, DW.6 - A.P.Shivaraman, DW.31 - Adhi
Rajaram, DW.32 - M. Ravichandran, DW.33 - K.
Nagarajan, DW.34 - M. Subramaniyan, DW.35 -
K. Sekar, DW.36 - K. Nanjegowdu, DW.37 -
S. Shanmugam, DW.38 - G. Pandurangan, DW.39 -
S. Suyambarakasam, DW.40 - A.R.P. Ramamoorthy,
DW.44 - A. Sekar, DW.45 - R. Selvaraj, DW.46 -
R. Rajkumar, DW.47 - K. Annamalai, DW.48 -
P.V. Velliangiri, DW.49 - R. Eswaran, DW.50 - James
Raja, DW.51 - K. Rajagopal, DW.52 - N.Neducheliyan,
DW.53 - V. Vasu, DW.54 - Gopikanth, DW.55 -
N. Swamynathan, DW.56 - M. Rajendran, DW.57 -
M. Tamil Chelvan, DW.58 - J. Sudhakaran, DW.59 -
K.C. Murugesan, DW.60 - M. Vairamani, DW.61 -
A. Anwarraja, DW.62 - M.S. Dorai Muthuraj, DW.63 -
A.S. Arunachalam, they all speak about deposit of amount
ranging fromminimum Rs.12,000/- maximum Rs.18,000/-
for issuance of copy of the Namathu MGR newspaper. In
this regard, they also submitted application.

DW.7 - Samsudeen, DW.8 - R. Adhishesan, DW.9 -
G. Maniraj, DW.10 - M. Kothandapani, DW.11 -
K. Soundrapandian, DW.12 - R.P. Paramashivam, DW.13
- A. Balasubramaniam, DW.14 - P.M.S. Mani, DW.15 -
D.K. Murthy, DW.16 - A. Thangaraj, DW.17 -
S. Ramachandran, DW.18 - M. Natesan, DW.19 -
P. Kannan, DW.20 - K. Sekar speak about celebration of
birthday of Accused No.1 and contribution of amount in
connection with the birthday. Contribution varies from
Rs.1,000/-, Rs.1,500/-, Rs.2,000/-. DW.12 deposes that
they celebrated the birthday of Chief Minister on grand
scale. A sum of Rs.2,16,500/- was collected and demand
draft was obtained and same was sent to Accused No.1.
DW.15 has deposed that Rs.2,96,800/- was raised by way
of contribution and he obtained a demand draft and the
same was sent to Party District Secretary. 200-300
persons made contributions for birthday. DW.16 deposes
that he remitted amount of Rs.2,96,800/- for obtaining
demand draft. DW.18 deposes demand draft was obtained
for Rs.3,42,300/- and sent to Accused No.1.

DW.21 - S. Selvam, DW.22 - R. Ramalingam, DW.23 -
C.N. Swamy, DW.24 - Thotta Tharani, DW.25 -
K. Thangamuthu, DW.26 - Kanchi Pannerselvam, DW.27
- Rathinavel, DW.28 - Pandurangan, DW.29 -
Muttumani, DW.30 - K.P. Raju speak about contribution
made towards marriage of Accused No.3. DW.21 has
deposed that in connection with marriage of Accused No.3,
they collected Rs.50,000/-and spent the same on banners,
decoration, flags and arch for the procession. He has
given written explanation to the Income Tax Department.
Rs.50,000/- includes his contribution and also contribution
made by others. DW.22 has deposed that in connection
with the marriage, they made arrangement for decoration
of the procession route in their area and for that he
collected collection to the tune of Rs.1.50 lakhs and
handed over the same to K.R.V.Ramani of Milapur
Constituency of AIADMK. Income tax Officer enquired
him. DW.23 has deposed that they collected Rs.15,000/-
from each area for the purpose of marriage of Accused
No.3. He contributed Rs.10,000/- for the above purpose
and remaining Rs.15,000/- was collected in his area. They
all spent about Rs.70,000/- towards crackers and music
band. He collected a cheque for the said amount from
DW.1 - Ramkumar. DW.24 has deposed that he is a
painter and Art Director for films. AIADMK party persons
approached him for designing the façade of marriage hall
entrance. He knew Shivaji Ganesan's family from his
childhood. Hence he agreed to design the façade of the
marriage on the entrance. He made a sketch in this
connection. He was not involved in execution of the above
façade designed by him. He entrusted the work to one of
his Assistants by name Ramesh. He did not take any
remuneration for the said art designing. He gave
explanation before the Income Tax Department. DW.25
has deposed that he along with others arranged procuring
rice and vegetables. He arranged two cooks. Plantation
leaves grown in his land were supplied for the above
occasion. Subramanyam, Paramashivam and
Dandayudapani were three others involved in procuring
rice and vegetables. Jayaraman and Shankar are the two
cooks who prepared food items. He paid Rs.17,000/-
each. He has given statement before the Income Tax
Officer. Breakfast was arranged by the bride's side.
DW.26 has deposed that they were told marriage pandal
would be put up by bride side. They decided to put the
façade of the marriage pandal. The actual cost of
execution of the package is Rs.57,02,050/-. He gave list
of persons who contributed money for execution of the
work. DW.27 has deposed that he along with 11 others
arranged the façade of marriage pandal. Work was done
by Ramesh. He paid Rs.5 lakhs. Said amount was
collected from party workers in the District. He prepared
list of persons who contributed money for the above works
along with their names and addresses. The above work
relating to façade marriage pandal was done by him and
others voluntarily. DW.28 has deposed that about 12 of
them went to their respective Districts and collected
money from party workers. It amounted to Rs.5 lakhs and
they contributed to the same for the work of façade of
marriage pandal. DW.29 has deposed that 12 persons
decided to contribute Rs.5 lakhs of the various labour
unions of Transport Corporations and selected ten Unions
and intimated about the decision of putting up façade of
marriage pandal. He requested Rs.50,000/- each for the
above purpose thereby Rs.5 lakhs was collected by the
above Unions and said amount was handed over to Kanchi
Panner Selvam who in turn gave it to Ramesh for
execution of the work. The Union collected voluntary
contributions of their Members. Income tax officials issued
notice. 12 persons prepared a joint petition and submitted
to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. No one asked
them to do the work relating to the façade of the marriage
pandal and they did that voluntarily. DW.30 has deposed
that they wanted to do something for marriage of Accused
No.3. They wanted to put up a pandal for the marriage.
When they verified, they were told that the marriage
pandal will be put up by bride's party. Thereafter, 12 of
them decided to put the façade for the said marriage
pandal and collected Rs.5 lakhs by way of contribution and
gave that money to Kanchi Paneer Selvam. Nobody has
asked them to put up façade for the pandal and they did
that on their own.

DW.41 - K.Seetharaman has deposed that he is a
member of AIADMK Party since 1980-1981. He was a
treasurer for Mylapur Area of AIADMK Party. They came to
know that A1 attended the marriage of A3-V.N.
Sudhakaran. They made decorations for the procession
route. He along with other office bearers collected about
Rs.50,000/- and handed it over to K.R.V. Ramani, who was
the AIADMK Party's Area Secretary for Mylapur Area in
Chennai. He personally contributed Rs.5,000/-. MRC Nagar
is situated within Mylapur Area in Chennai.
During the cross-examination, he has stated that
they did not prepare the list of contributors. They did not
issue the receipts to the contributors for the amounts
collected from them. He does not remember the number of
persons who made the contributions to the tune of
Rs.50,000/-. The said collections made were handed over
to K.R.V. Ramani about 15 to 20 days prior to the
marriage of A3.

DW.42- P.S. Annamalai has deposed that he is a member
of AIADMK Party which was formed in the year 1972 by
late M.G. Ramachandran. He agreed to collect
Rs.2,00,000/- towards arrangements to be made to
receive A1 on the occasion of the above marriage in that
area. The procession was decorated in that area. In this
connection, he received a Notice from Income Tax
Department enquiring him about the said Rs.2,00,000/-.
He sent reply to that notice. Nobody asked them to make
the above arrangements. As a member holding responsible
position in the party, he felt that it was his duty to make
such arrangements during visits by A1. He did not prepare
the list of contributors from whom contributions were
collected by him. He did not issue any receipts to those
contributors.

DW.43-V. Kothandaraman has deposed that MRC Nagar is
situated in Mylapur Legislative Constituency. KRV Ramani
was the AIADMK's Party's Secretary for Mylapur
Constituency. The secretary of the above area was
responsible to over see the decoration arrangements. It
was customary to make collections and hand over the
amount to the concerned area secretary. They collected
Rs.1,00,000/- from the party workers, members and the
office bearers of the Annanagar Area and handed over the
same to KRV Ramani. Income Tax department has issued
the notice. He has submitted written statements to that
notice.

DW.64 - Shanmugam (Auditor) has deposed that he is a
practicing Chartered Accountant. He has been practicing as
Chartered Accountant for the past over 25 years. His
educational qualifications are B.Com., FCA.
He was the Auditor for A1-Jayalalitha during the
period from 1996 to 2000. He dealt with the Accounts and
Assessments of A1-Jayalalithat for the assessment years
1992-92 to 1997-98.
The check period pertaining to the present case is
from 1991-92 to 1996-97 (1/7/91 to 30/4/1996). During
this period A1-Jayalalitha had acquired only one property
namely vacant site bearing No.31/A, Poes Garden,
Chennai. The value of the said property on the date of
acquisition including the cost of registration was around
Rs.10,00,000/-.
During the above period A1-Jayalalitha renovated
her residential building in No.36, Poes Garden, Chennai.
She also constructed a new building in No.31/A., Poes
Garden. She also constructed new Farm House in her
Grape Garden at Jedimetla village, Hyderabad.
Apart from the above items of properties, A1-
Jayalalitha did not have either beneficial interest or
ownership in any other property during the above period.
A1-Jayalalitha was a partner in:
1. M/s. Jaya Publications.
2. M/s. Sasi Enterprises.
A1-Jayalalitha was not taking active interest in the
day to day Management of the above firms.
A1- Jayalalitha assumed the office of Chief Minister
of Tamilnadu on 24.06.1991. During May, 1991-92 she
executed a Power of Attorney in favour of A2-Sasikala to
carry on business of M/s. Jaya Publicationson her own
without any reference to her (A1-Jayalalitha). He has seen
Ex.P995. It is xerox copy of the General Power of Attorney
dated 27.05.1992 executed by A1-Jayalalitha in favour of
A2-Sasikala.
A1-Jayalalitha acquired agricultural land measuring
about 15 acres during the year 1968 at Jedimetla Village
near Hyderabad. There was a grape garden in the said
land at the time of its acquisition by A1-Jayalalitha. A1-
Jayalalitha was deriving agricultural income from the said
Grape Garden. She was declaring the said agricultural
income in her Income Tax Returns.
A1-Jayalalitha used to file her tax Returns to the
Central Circle-2, Office of Income Tax where all her
assessments were centralized. The Central Circle-2was a
Circle where high net worth Individuals and Corporates are
assessed. The assessments taking place in the Central
Circle are always scrutiny assessments. In scrutiny
assessments every item of Income and Expenditure will be
enquired into in detail under
Sec.143(3)
of Income Tax
Act.
During the assessment year 1994-95 the agricultural
income declared by the Assessee namely A1-Jayalalitha
had been partly disallowed by the Income Tax
Department. Against that A1-Jayalalitha had preferred an
appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In
the files which are produced before Court by the Income
Tax Department he identifies Ex.D61 as Certified True
Copy of the order dated 31.03.1999 passed Income Tax
(Appeals-1), Chennai. Normally the Appellate Authority
hears both the Assessee as well as Department before
deciding the appeals.
Up to the assessment year 1992-93 the agricultural
income declared by A1-Jayalalitha in her Income Tax
Returns had been allowed by the Department. It is only
from the Assessment Year 1993-94 onwards the Income
Tax Authorities had partly disallowed the agricultural
income declared by A1-Jayalalitha in her Tax Returns. In
the above mentioned Appeal, the Appellate Authority
called for a Report from the Assessing Authority with a
direction to inspect the Grape Garden of A1-Jayalalitha and
submit a detailed Report regarding the existing standing
crops and the derivable income.
The Assessing Authority inspected the Grape Garden
of A1-Jayalalith somewhere during the month February or
March, 1999. During the said inspection he was present as
an authorized representative of the Grape Garden of A1-
Jayalalitha into 10 parts and physically counted the
number of Grape Wines in each part. Apart from Grape
Wines, there was also Setthapl Trees, Rampal Tress,
Coconut Trees, Pomegranate Trees and plantain shrubs.
There was also a small portion flower garden growing
roses and kadambam. There were in all 11,481 Grape
Wines in the entire Grape Garden of A1. Based on the
above physical inspection, the Assessing Authority
submitted his report to the Appellate Authority.
Prior to the above inspection, the Income Tax Officer
had recorded the Sworn Statement of neighbouring land
owner by name Mallareddy during the year 1997 in his
presence. In the documents produced before the Court by
the Income Tax Department,he identifies Ex.D62.
The Assessing Authority who inspected the Grape
Garden of A1 obtained a Report from NABARD regarding
price of Grapes.
The Appellate Authority on the basis of the Report
submitted by the Assessing Authority and also the Report
of NABARD and the Sworn Statement of the said
Mallareddy, passed an Order on 31.03.1999 as per Ex.D61
allowing the claim of A1-Jayalalitha.
Even during the Assessment Years 1995-96 and
1996-97, the Assessing Authority had partly disallowed the
agricultural income shown by A1-Jayalalitha in her IT
returns for those years. Against the Order of the Assessing
Authority, separate Appeals were preferred by A1-
Jayalalith before the Income Tax Appellate Authority. The
appeals were clubbed and a common order was passed by
the Appellate Authority on 29.12.1999 as per Ex.D63. The
appellate Authority passed the Order Ex.D63 based on the
previous report of the Assessing Authority and also taking
into account of the inflation factor in the price index.
The Revenue (Income Tax Department) preferred
Second Appeals against the Orders as per Exs.D61 and
D63 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal after hearing both sides dismissed
the Appeals of the Department affirming the Orders of the
1st Appellate Authority. Copy of the Order passed by the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is found in the file produced
by IT Department. The said Order is Ex.D64 dated
11.1.2008.
The Income Tax Authorities re-opened the earlier
Assessments done for the Assessment Years 1987-88 to
1992-93, in the year 1998 and sent Notices to the
Assessee. The Assessee in her Reply to the said Notices
sent by the Department required the Department to state
the reasons for re-opening the earlier concluded
Assessments. The Income Tax Department started the Re-
assessment Proceedings without assigning any reasons.
Hence, A1-Jayalalitha preferred Writ Petition before
Chennai High Court challenging the Re-opening of the
Assessments. In the said Writ Petition, the Department
filed their Counter explaining there under the reasons for
re-opening for Assessments. In the light of that A1-
Jayalalitha withdrew the Writ Petition.
The Income Tax Department in the above Writ
Petition had explained that the Anti-Corruption Department
in Tamilnadu had informed them that the agricultural
income declared by the Assessee namely A1-Jayalalitha
was inflated and not a reason one and thereby the
Department decided to re-open the earlier Assessments.
The Assessing Authority after re-opening the
Assessments for the Assessment years 1987-88 to 1992-
93, passed fresh Order partly disallowing the agricultural
income declared by the Assessee. Against the Re-
Assessment Orders passed by the Assessing Authority, the
Assessee preferred separate Appeals before the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Appellate
Authority after hearing the Assessee by a Common Order
on 31.03.2002, deleting the disallowance made by the
Assessing Authority in respect of the agricultural income
declared by Assessee. The Appeals filed by the Revenue
came to be dismissed on 20.4.2007.

Under the Scheme of Income Tax Act
, the Order
passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal would be
final on the question of facts and no further Appeals from
the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, on the
question of facts.
With regard to the renovation work carried out by
the Assessee namely A1-Jayalalitha during the check
period (1/7/1991 to 30/4/1996) there were Assessment
proceedings under the
Income Tax Act
. In the said
Assessment Proceedings for the years 1994-95, 1995-96
and 1996-97, the Assessing Authority had issued a
direction to the District Valuation Officer to value the
construction carried out by the Assessee during the
relevant Assessment Years. In the file produced by the
Income Tax Department, he identifies Ex.D66 as the
Report dated: nil, submitted by the Valuation Officer in
respect of the renovation work undertaken by the Assessee
during the accounting years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-
94.
The total agricultural income shown in the Returns
filed by the Assessee and income shown by the
Department during the Check period 1/7/1991 to
30/4/1996 was Rs.52,50,000/-.
In respect of the above period, the Assessee had
also submitted the Report of Registered Valuer before the
Assessing Authorities. Copy of the Report dated
22.03.1998 of the said Registered Valuer is also available
in the file produced by the Income Tax Department as per
Ex.D66.
The Assessing Authority based on the Report of
District Valuation Officer of IT Department had passed the
Assessment Orders for the Check period over-looking the
materials produced by the Assessee namely A1-Jayalalitha.
Against the said Assessment Orders, the Assessee namely
A1-Jayalalitha preferred Appeal before the 1st Appellate
Authority. In the Order Ex.D63, the Appellate Authority
considered both the reports of the Registered Valuer
produced by the Assessee and also District Valuation
Officer of the Department. The Appellate Authority noticed
that there was no difference between the Report submitted
by the District Valuation Officer regarding extent of
construction and renovation.
It was demonstrated before the Appellate Authority
that the cost of structure as reflected in the Registered
Valuer's Report almost tallied with the estimation done by
the District Valuation Officer. At page Nos.15 to 17 of the
Orders passed by the Appellate Authority vide Ex.D63,
they find the comparative table of the above Reports. The
comparative table shows that apart from the value of
structures, the value of one Lift, Generators, Electrical
Appliances, Air Conditioners, Refrigerator etc. shown in the
Registered Valuer's Report almost tallied with the Report of
the District Valuation Officer. The difference was only
regarding the cost of marbles used for the said
construction.
The appellate Authority gave a direction to the
Assessing Authority to verify the cost of marbles with
reference to the bills submitted by A1-Jayalalithat and to
submit Report regarding the said marbles. The Assessing
Authority visited the premises of the marble suppliers in
Bombay. The names of the said Marble Suppliers are:
1) M/s. Simplex Enterprises.
2) M/s. New Diamond Granite Exports.
3) M/s. Pashupathi Granites Pvt. Ltd.
4) M/s. Elegant Marbles and Grani Industries Ltd.

The Assessing Authority issued Summons to the
above suppliers and recorded their Sworn Statements. The
Assessing Authority also collected copies of the Invoices
raised by the above Marble Suppliers in respect of similar
Marbles supplied to their other customers during the above
period. Copies of the said Invoices are available before the
Court in the file produced by the Income Tax Department.

The District Valuation Officer had adopted the
Quotations said to have been given by M/s. Elegant
Marbles and Grani Industries Ltd. to base his Valuations
Report. Relying on this, the Assessing Authority had
passed the Order. But the Appellate Authority after
considering the Sworn Statements of the aforesaid
Suppliers and also the Inspection Report of the Assessing
Authority, passed the Order at Ex.D63. In the file produced
by the Income Tax Department, they find Certified True
Copy of Letter dated 08/12/1989 addressed to the
Assessing Authority namely Deputy Commissioner of
Income Tax, by Elegant Marbles and Granite Industries Ltd
as per Ex.D68.
The Appellate Authority while agreeing with the
Returns submitted by the Assessee namely A1-Jayalalitha,
added a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in respect of each of the
three constructions done by the Assessee and passed
Order at Ex.D68. Feeling aggrieved by the Order passed by
the Appellate Authority, the Assessee namely A1-
Jayalalitha as well as the Revenue Preferred the Appeals
before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The said second
appeals were all heard together and they were disposed of
by a Common Order dated 11/1/2008 vide Ex.D64. The
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under the above Ex.D64
deleted the addition of Rs.6,00,000/- made by the 1st
Appellate Authority, in respect of the above constructions
done by the Assessee. The 2nd Appeals preferred by the
Revenue were all dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal.
The marriage of V.N. Sudhakaran (A3) took place on
7/9/1995. During October, 1995 the Income Tax
Department sent Notice to A1-Jayalalitha with a
questionnaire and called upon A1-Jayalalitha as to whether
A1-Jayalalitha spent for the marriage of V.N. Sudhakaran
(A3). A1-Jayalalitha sent a reply mentioning that she did
not spend for the marriage of V.N. Sudhakaran (A3). She
clarified that the expenses were met by the bride's family
during the above marriage and that some expenses were
also incurred by the Party Workers of AIADMK Party.
In this regard, there were proceedings under
Income
Tax Act
during the Assessment Year 1996-97. The
Department wanted to Charge A1-Jayalalitha regarding the
expenditure incurred for the above marriage to the tune of
around Rs.97,00,000/-.
The above expenditure of Rs.97,00,000/- was spread
over under four heads namely:
1) Compliments given along with Invitations
2) Decoration of the marriage site.
3) Decoration on the procession route.
4) Food expenses to Party Members.

With regard to the expenditure charged under the
head "compliments given along with Invitations", six
persons immediately after the above marriage confirmed
to the Income Tax Department that they had received the
compliments along with Invitation, from one V.Bhaskaran.
Further three more persons confirmed the same during the
Assessment Proceedings. The said V. Bhaskaran had also
addressed a Letter to the Assessing Authority. The said
Letter was produced by him before the Assessing Authority
during the Assessing Authority during the Assessment
Proceedings. Certified Copy of that Letter dated
18.03.1999 is available in the file produced before the
Court by the Income Tax Department as per Ex.D69. The
said V. Bhaskaran is the elder brother of the bridegroom
namely V.N. Sudhakaran (A3). Hence, the 1st Appellate
Authority held that the expenditure charged under this
head cannot be held to be incurred by A1-Jayalalitha.
With regard to the expenditure under the head
"Decoration of the Marriage site", one Kanchi Paneer
Selvam (DW26) and eleven others confirmed before the
Income Tax Authorities that the expenditure was incurred
by them. In the file produced by the Income Tax
Department Certified True Copy of the joint letter
addressed by the said Kanchi Paneer Selvam and 11 others
is available and it is already marked as Ex.D46. These
persons produced documentary evidence before the
Assessing Authority giving the details of money collected
by them for decoration of the marriage site.
With regard to the expenditure on "Decoration of the
Procession Route", one K.R.V. Ramani had confirmed at
the time of marriage and also before the Assessing
Authority, that he had collected money from various Party
men. He also produced documentary evidence giving
details of money received and money spent.
With regard to "Food expenses to the party
Members", one O.S. Maniyan, Adirajaram (DW31) and
Thangamuttu DW25) have confirmed before the Assessing
Authority that they incurred the expenditure relating to
food provided to the Party Members. They also produced
documentary evidence giving details of money collected.
Most of those persons who made money contributions
were summoned by the Assessing Authority and their
Sworn Statements were recorded. Further three cook who
had prepared food for the Party Workers confirmed before
the Assessing Authority that they received money from
O.S. Maniyan, Adirajaram and Thangamuttu.
The Appellate Authority deleted the additions made
by the Assessing Authority in respect of the first three
items namely "1) Compliments given along with
Invitations, 2) Decoration of the Marriage site, 3)
Decoration along Marriage Route". With regard to the
fourth item namely "Expenses incurred towards Food
supplied to the Party Members" the Assessing Authority on
surmise that the Assessee being the General Secretary of
the Party may have incurred expenditure, took the
expenditure as Rs.3,00,000/- and assessed the Assessee.

The assessee as well as the Department preferred
the 2nd Appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai against the above Order passed by the 1st
Appellate Authority. The Appellate Tribunal after hearing
both the sides passed the order as per Ex.D64 deleting the
addition of Rs.3,00,000/- done by the Appellate Authority,
as being done without any basis. The Tribunal also
dismissed the Appeals filed by the Revenue.
At the time, when A1-Jayalalitha acquired the Grape
Garden in Jedimetla near Hyderabad, there existed an old
Farm House in it. A1-Jayalalitha constructed a new Farm
House thereafter. The old farm house was not renovated
by her during the check period.
When the District Valuation Officer visited the said
Grape Garden during the year 1997 in connection with
valuation of the Farm House, he was present as a
Representative of the Assessee namely A1-Jayalalitha.
During the said inspection, the District Valuation Officer
observed that no renovation was done by A1-Jayalalitha to
the said Farm House. The New Farm House which was built
by A1-Jayalalitha was valued. The Income Tax Authorities
on the basis of valuation Report submitted by the District
Valuation Officer completed the assessment on the
premise that new Farm house was constructed by A1-
Jayalalitha in the said Grape Garden and there was no
renovation of the old Farm House.
One Mr. Vijayashankar was the Architect for A1-
Jayalalitha. He designated the architecture of the Farm
House as well as new building constructed in No.31/A,
Poes Garden, Payments to the Architect always used to be
made through cheques. The said Architect Vijayashankar
was not engaged for any work relating to the marriage of
V.N. Sudhakaran (A3).
The Assessee did not purchase any jewelry during
the check period. During the Assessment Proceedings
covering the check period (1/7/1991 to 30/4/1996) every
item mentioned in the I.T. Returns filed by A1-
Jayalalithawas thoroughly checked by the I.T. Authorities
and they found that no purchases of jewelry were made by
the Assessee during the above period.
After the Scrutiny Assessment was completed for the
period 1997-98 Commissioner of Income Tax invoked

Section 263
of Income Tax Act on the premise that the
jewellery, sarees, footwear, motor vehicles, wrist watches
etc. were not valued in line with the valuation done by the
Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, TamilNadu. In
this connection, a Show Cause Notice was issued to
Assessee namely A1-Jayalalitha on 06.11.2001. In the files
produced before the Court by the Income Tax Department
he identifies Ex.D70 as Certified True Copy of the Show
Cause Notice dated 06.11.2001 sent to A1-Jayalalitha by
the Commissioner of Income Tax. To the said Show Cause
Notice, copies of Inventory Mahazara drawn by Anti
Corruption Police in respect of premises No.31/1, Poes
Garden and No.36, Poes Garden along with covering letter
were attached. In the files submitted to the Court by the
Income Tax Department he identifies Ex.D71 as Certified
True Copy of covering letter dated 31.1.1997 addressed by
Additional Director of Income Tax, to the Asst.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II (5),
Chennai. Copies of Inventory Panchanamas enclosed to
that letter are Exs.D72 and D73. To the said Show Cause
Notice, a reply in the form of objections was submitted by
the Assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax. The
Commissioner of Income Tax considering the above Reply
of the Assessee, passed an order on 12.2.2002 as per
Ex.D74, setting aside the original Assessment done by the
Assessing Authority.
Against the order passed by the Commissioner of
Income Tax, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal after hearing both sides passed an Order on
11.1.2008 as per Ex.D64 annulling the order passed by the
Commissioner of Income Tax, both the facts and law.
On account of late filing of IT Returns by the
Assessee, the Assessing Authority imposed penalty under

Section 271(1)(b)
of IT Act, by Order dated 30.08.1996
passed by him. Against the said Order imposing penalty
the Assessee namely A1-Jayalalitha preferred an Appeal
before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the
late filing of IT Returns against the Order passed by the 2nd
Appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. A
submission was made before the Appellate Tribunal that
the delay in filing of IT Returns was due to the negligence
on the part of the then Auditors M/s. Rajashekar and Co. It
was also submitted before the Appellate Tribunal that the
Assessee was holding the post of Chief Minister of
TamilNadu and she had entrusted the job of filing of her IT
Returns to her said Auditors. The Appellate Tribunal
accepted the explanation/contention of the Assessee and
deleted the penalty levied by the Assessing Authority,
under its Order dated 11.1.2008 as per Ex.D64.
The Assessing Authority had also imposed penalty
under
Section 271(1)(C)
of IT Act for concealment of
income by the Assessee and for furnishing of inaccurate
particulars of income. Against this Order, the Assessee
preferred 1st appeal before the Commissioner of Income
Tax (Appeals). The Appellate Authority under separate
Orders dated 18.6.1997 and 25.3.1999 pertaining to the
Assessment Years 1993-94 and 1994-95 respectively,
cancelled the penalty levied by the Assessing Authority.
Against the Order passed by the 1st Appellate Authority,
the Revenue filed 2nd appeals before the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
under its common order dated 11.1.2008 dismissed the 2nd
appeals preferred by the Revenue.
According to him in view of the Orders passed by the
Income Tax Authorities there was no concealment of
income by the Assessee namely A1-Jayalalitha before the
IT Authorities.
The Assessee's 44th birthday fell on 24.2.1992. At
that time, the Assessee had received gifts by way of
Demand Drafts and cash from various Party Workers,
aggregating to Rs.2,15,00,012/- (Rupees Two Crores
Fifteen Lakhs and Twelve Only). She had also received
Foreign Remittance for Rs.77,52,591/-. The said gifts were
duly declared by her in her IT Returns filed before the
Assessing Authority. The said Demand Drafts were all
remitted to the Bank Account of A1-Jayalalitha.
The Central Bureau of Investigation initiated Criminal
Proceedings against A1-Jayalalitha regarding the above gift
items. The action of the CBI in initiating those proceedings
against A1-Jayalalitha was challenged by A1-Jayalalitha
before Madras High Court in a Criminal Petition filed
u/
Section 482
of Cr.P.C. The said Criminal Proceedings
came to be quashed in entirely by the Madras High Court.
The Assessee namely A1-Jayalalitha had rental
income from house property, interest income from
deposits, dividend income from shares and agricultural
income from her agricultural lands.
If an Assessee incurs expenditure without showing
proper source of income then under the
Income Tax Act
,
such expenditure would be treated as undisclosed
investment and brought to tax. During the above check
period, there was no such instance of the Assessee namely
A1-Jayalalitha making such investment without disclosing
the source.
In internal page 13 of the order at Ex.D63, the
Appellate Authority gave direction to the assessing
authority to visit Mumbai and ascertain the rates of
Marbles and Granites and submit a report to the appellate
authority. In the records which are produced by Income
Tax Department before this Court, he Identifies Ex.D209
as the letter dated 1.12.1999 addressed to the assessing
officer by the appellate authority, requesting the assessing
authority to ascertain the market rates of Marbles and
Granites at Mumbai from the suppliers. Pursuant to this
letter, the assessing officer had visited Mumbai for
ascertaining the rates at which the suppliers supplied
Marbles and Granites to A1. He had accompanied the
assessing officer. In the records produced before Court by
the Income Tax Department he identifies Ex.D210 as the
report which was submitted by assessing officer to the
appellate authority on 10.12.1999. To the said report, the
assessing officer attached the details of quotations given
by the suppliers. The said quotations form Annexures 1 to
40 the report Ex.D210. In one of the quotations, the
supplier of White Marbles namely M/s Simplex Enterprises
has mentioned that on account of the bulk quantity
ordered by Accused No.1 discount was given regarding the
rates of supply of Marble. The Income Tax Authorities
enquired the said Simplex Enterprises and other suppliers
and recorded their sworn statements. In the assessment
proceedings, he had produced complete details of the
payments made by A1 for construction of the building in
No.31-A, Poes Garden, for the renovation of the building in
property No.36, Poes Garden and for the new construction
made in the property at Jedimetla near Hyderabad, along
with a covering letter as per Ex.D211. There are two
annexures to this letter. The details of expenditure shown
in the annexures to the above letter includes the payment
of Rs.1,88,160/- through DD dated 22.08.1995 in favour
of New Diamond Granite Exports, payment of
Rs.1,60,000/- through DD dated 01.09.1995 in favour of
New Diamond Granite Exports. In Annexure No.2 to the
above letter dated 25.01.1999, items Nos.9, 10, 11 and 24
are the payments made to Marbles suppliers of Bombay by
A1.
After enquiry, the 1st appellate Authority accepted
the cost of which was declared as incurred by the
assessee in the return of income filed, subject to addition
of Rs.2,00,000/- for each of the constructions made in the
above properties. On further appeal by the department as
well as assessee, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal while
confirming the cost of construction as declared by the
assessee in respect of all the above 3 buildings, deleted
the ad-hoc addition of Rs.2,00,000/- each in respect of
each of the above 3 buildings made by the 1st appellate
authority. The said order passed by the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal is at Ex.D64.
The total cost of construction incurred by A1 for the
construction of the new building in property No.31-A, Poes
Garden was Rs.137.60 Lakhs. The total cost of renovation
incurred by A1 in respect of the buildings in property
No.36, Poes Garden was Rs.76.75 Lakhs. The cost of
construction of new building in Jedi Metla property was
Rs.139.62 Lakhs.
The total cost of construction incurred by A1 for the
construction of new building in property No.31-A, Poes
Garden was Rs.137.60 Lakhs. The total cost of renovation
incurred by A1 in respect of the building in property No.36,
Poes Garden was Rs.76.75 Lakhs. The cost of construction
of new building in Jedi Metla property was Rs.139.62
Lakhs. Had the assessee been unable to explain the source
of income for meeting the above expenditure, the income
tax authorities would have constructed that the above
expenditure was met by the assessee from undisclosed
income. No such order was passed in any of the
proceedings before the IT Authorities that the above
expenditure was met by the assessee from undisclosed
income. The source of income as per returns filed by the
assessee was accepted by the IT Authorities, in respect of
the above expenditure.
Part of the building in No.31-A Poes Garden had
been leased by the assessee in favour of J Jay. TV Pvt.Ltd.
Part of the building in Jedi Metla property had been leased
by the assessee in favour of A2-Sasikala. Copy of the
memorandum of understanding dated 10.12.1994 entered
into between A1 Jayalalitha and J. Jay. TV Pvt. Ltd. and
copy of memorandum of understanding dt. 09.07.1994
entered into between A1-Jayalalitha and A2-Sasikala were
produced by him before the Deputy Commissioner of
Income Tax along with letter dated 26.3.1999. Office copy
of the said letter dated 26.3.1999 bearing the stamp seal
of Income Tax Department is Ex.D212. Copy of the said
memorandum of understanding dt.10.12.1994 between
A1-Jayalalitha and M/s. J.Jay TV Pvt. Ltd. and copy of
memorandum of understanding dated 9.7.1994 between
A1-Jayalalitha and A2-Sasikala are Ex.D213 and Ex.D214
respectively. These documents were accepted and acted
upon by the Income Tax Authorities. For the construction
of the building property No.31-A, Poes Garden, Madras
M/s. J. Jay TV Pvt. Ltd. spent Rs.38,21,000/-. In respect of
the building constructed in Jedi Metla property A2 Sasikala
spent Rs.31,78,000/-.
In Ex.P2330 item No.142 showing payment of
Rs.15,90,726/- is the payment made by A1 towards
income tax. In the same document item Nos.178, 179 and
180 showing payments of Rs.2,30,445/- (Rs.2,675/- +
2,27,770/-), Rs.5,63,482/- (Rs.9,282/- + Rs.5,54,200/-),
Rs.8,18,161/- (Rs.9,905/- + Rs.8,08,256/-) are the
payments made by A1 to the Income Tax Department
towards income tax for assessment years 1987-88, 1988-
89 and 1989-90 respectively. The payment of
Rs.15,90,726/- shown in statement of expenditure
annexure-4 to the charge sheet and the payment of taxes
as per items Nos. 178, 179 and 180 shown in same
annexure No.4 to the charge sheet is one and the same
item of expenditure but it is wrongly accounted twice in
the expenditure annexure Ex.P2330.
A1-Jayalalitha was General Secretary of AIADMK
Party during the entire check period. As General Secretary
of the party, she used to receive gifts in the form of Gold
Sword, Gold Crown and Gold Scepter during various party
functions from the organizers. These items for security
reasons had been kept at the residence of Accused No.1.
None of these items personally belong to A1. In this
regard, Mr. Dindigal the assessing-Treasurer of AIADMK
Party had given letter to the Assessing Officer. He was
representing the assessee namely A1 before the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide order Ex.D64.
The total amount of interest that accrued to A1 as per her
Bank accounts during the check period (01.07.1991 to
30.04.1996) and as assessed by the I.T. Authorities was
Rs.78,26,457.50 Paise. The assessee had received rental
advance of Rs.1,35,000/- during the check period in
respect of her Srinagar Colony property, Hyderabad from
the tenant. During the above check period, A1 got refund
of wealth tax to the tune of Rs.1,35,631/-. She also
received back maturity deposit amount to the tune of
Rs.7,00,000/- from Sriram Chits during the above check
period.
Before the Income Tax Authority he had submitted a
petition requesting them to enquire whether PW125-
Vasudevan was a registered valuer under the
Wealth Tax
Act
and whether his valuation of Jewelry can be considered
for the purpose of wealth tax. The IT Authorities gave
intimation to the assessee stating that said Vasudevan is
not an approved valuer. Copy of the letter dated
16.11.1998 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of
Income Tax; Central Circle-II(2), Chennai is Ex.D215. The
intimation dated 31.12.1998 sent by Deputy Commissioner
of Income Tax to A1 is Ex.D216.
In case where any property is held by an assessee
Benami in the name of other person and the IT Authorities
on enquiry find that there is such Benami holding of
property by the assessee in the names of others, the IT
Authorities will treat the assessee as the owner of such
property and if assessee is unable to explain the source of
income for the acquisition of such property then the IT
Authorities will treat the source as undisclosed income and
proceed to assess such income. In respect of A1 there was
no finding by IT Authorities that A1 was holding any such
property or funds Benami i.e. in the names of any other
person.
The document which is marked as Ex.D69 dated
18.03.1999 is incomplete. Its complete copy is found in
Volume No.10 of the records produced by Income Tax
Department. Complete copy of the said document is
Ex.D69(A).
During the cross-examination, he has stated that he
completed his B.Com degree in 1984. He completed his
Chartered Accountancy course in 1987. He did Articleship
under M/s Brammaiah and Co., Chartered Accountants,
Chennai from the year 1984-87. He started independent
practice as Chartered Accountant from February 1988.
From September 1988, he became a partner in M/s.
Shanmugham and Muttu, Chartered Accountants. He does
not remember the day or month on which he was
appointed as before the Tax Authority and representing the
Assessee a letter of authorization is required. He does not
have copy of the letter of authorization issued by A1
appointing him as her auditor. If necessary he would
produce that letter later. The documents which are filed
before this Court by the IT Authorities would show that he
has dealt with the accounts of A1. He has filed the IT
returns for A1-Jayalalitha for few years during the period
1991-92 to 1998. He knows A1 personally. He is not her
family member. A1 authorised him to represent on behalf
of her before IT Authorities. He has not brought copy of
the letter of authorization issued by A1 authorizing him to
represent her before the IT Authorities in various
proceedings relating to her. If required he would produce it
later.
He has not gone through the sale deed pertaining to
property No.31-A, Poes Garden. It is true that IT Appeal
No.214/1997-98 was filed by him before Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeal) on behalf of A1. It is not true to
suggest that he has falsely stated before the Court that he
was present when the statement of Mallaredy was
recorded by the Assessing Officer as per Ex.D62. In
Ex.D61, which is copy of the order dated 31.03.1991
passed in IT Appeal No.214/1997-98 by the Commissioner
of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Chennai his attention has been
drawn to the following observation at page 15 of the
order:
"The counsel expressed the ignorance of the
appellant about the visit of the officers of the
Horticulture Department of Andra Pradesh. Similarly
he pointed out that it was not known to the appellant
as to when Mr. Mallareddy was examined and a
statement was recorded from him".

With regard to the above observation of the
Appellate Authority, he said that one Mr. Maruthi
Nahendran who was Chartered Accountant of Mallareddy
was present and he attested the Sworn Statement of the
said Mallareddy recorded as per Ex.D62 and that he was
present at that time. He has not signed the said Sworn
Statement of Mallareddy, as Chartered Accountant of A1.
The said Sworn Statement does not mention his name. He
does not have any document to show that he was present
at Jedi Metla property when Sworn Statement of said
Mallareddy was recorded as per Ex.D62 on 12.03.1997 by
the Assistant Director of Income Tax, Hyderabad.

Question:- I suggest to you that although you are
authorized representative of A1-Jayalalithat and you claim
that you have audited her accounts, You did not properly
present her case before the Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals). What do you say?
Ans:- He has now read para-7 of the Order
dt.11.01.2008 passed in I.T.-Appeals Nos. 1277 and
1836/Mds/97 and connected appeals filed by A1 before the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench-B, Chennai. The
appeal was against the imposition of penalty under
Section
271(1) (b)
of Income Tax Act. The Appellate Authority had
observed in para7 of the above order that the Assessee
namely A1 being Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu state and
also General Secretary of Political Party at the relevant
period was naturally busy with state matters and had
entrusted all tax matters were taken care by her tax
consultant promptly and that unfortunately her tax return
was not filed and her income tax case was not represented
properly by her accountant and the same has resulted in
ex-parte assessment and penalty. The Appellate Authority
has also observed further that for the mistake of the
counsel it was not just and proper for the assessing officer
to penalize the Assessee. I say that M/s. Rajashekar and
Co., Chartered Accountants were the tax consultants for
A1 at relevant point of time and on account of their
mistake the penalty came to be levied on A1 by the
Income Tax Assessing Officer.
Question:- I suggest that A1 terminated your
services on account of your non performance. What do you
say?
Ans:-It may be the view of A1. But he has performed
his professional duties punctually.
The check period in the present case is from
01.07.1991 to 30.04.1996. He did not participate in the
sale transaction pertaining to property No.31-A, Poes
Garden, Chennai. He had not produced copy of the sale
deed Ex.P1 dated 22.07.1991 before the Income Tax
Authorities. But the previous auditor might have produced
that document. He does not know that property No.36,
Poes Garden, Chennai stood in the name of Natyakala
Niketan represented by N.R. Sandhya and Jayalalitha. He
has not seen copy of the license issued by the local
authority permitting renovation of the building in No.36,
Poes Garden, Chennai. He could not say that as to when
exactly the renovation was started in the above property.
He also could not say the date on which the said
renovation work was completed. He has not seen any
completion certification issued after the said renovation
work in respect of the above property No.36, Poes Garden.
He has not seen the copy of the license issued by the
local authority for the construction of building in No.31-A,
Poes Garden. He also knows the exact date on which the
said work of construction was commenced and the date on
which the said work of construction was commenced and
the date on which the said work was finished. He has not
seen completion certification in respect of the building
constructed in property No.31-A, Poes Garden.
He has not seen the license issued for the
construction of the Farm House in the Grape Garden in
Jedi Metla property of A1 near Hyderabad. He does not
know the exact date on which the construction work of
said farm house was commenced and the date on which
the said work was completed.
He has seen the deeds of partnership pertaining to
M/s. Jaya publications and M/s. Sasi Enterprises. M/s. Jaya
Publications is carrying on the business of printing and
publishing news paper and M/s Sasi Enterprises was
carrying on the business of Secretarial work of Typing,
Copying, Fax, and hiring of video Tapes. He was not aware
that prior to 27.05.1992 (Date of execution of General
Power of Attorney Ex.P995) accused No.1 herself was
looking after the business of M/s. Jaya Publications and
M/s Sasi Enterprises along with A2 Sasikala. He does not
know that except Ex.P995 no other General Power of
Attorney had been executed by A1. Ex.P995 had been
executed by A1 in respect of the business of M/s. Jaya
Publications. The said General Power of Attorney was
executed during the check period.
He has not gone through the title deed pertaining to
Jedi Metla property acquired by A1 in the year 1968. He
does not know the Survey Number of the said Land. Out of
the said land which was acquired by A1, about 10 acres
was brought under cultivation. He was not sure that the
said Jedi Metla property stood in the name of Natyakala
Niketan represented by the said N.R. Sandhya and A1-
Jayalalitha.
Central Circle-II of Income Tax Department in
Chennai is an Assessment Wing but not Vigilance Wing as
suggested. He has stated that whenever A1 filed her
Income Tax Returns she disclosed her income. The Income
Tax returns for the assessment year 1991-92, 1992-93,
1994-95, 1995-96 of A1 were filed by her previous tax
consultant namely R. Rajashekar and Co., said Rajashekar
has been examined in this case as PW228. The said
Rajahshekar had also filed Wealth Tax Returns of A1 for
the above assessment years. He has further stated that on
account of non filing of IT returns for the assessment year
1993-95 within the stipulated time i.e. on or before
31.08.1994, A1 was served with notice under
Section
142(1)
of IT Act. A reminder was also sent to her on
15.02.1996 for filing the above IT return without further
delay. The Chartered Accountants, who were Tax
Consultants of A1, had submitted letters dt. 02.9.1996,
8.9.1996, and 17.9.1996 before the Assessing Officer
seeking extension of time for submitting returns.
Ultimately, the IT return for the assessment year 1993-94
was filed on behalf of A1 on 23.9.1996. That IT return was
not prepared by him. He does not know that after PW232
Dr. Subramanian Swamy filed complaint against A1 on
14.06.1996, the above IT return for the assessment year
1993-94 came to be filed on 23.09.1996.
Question:- I suggest to you that the IT Return of A1
for the assessment year 1993-94 was filed belatedly on
23.09.1996 in order to set right her unaccounted income
and properties. What do you say?
Ans: He does not know what was the said
unaccounted income and properties of A1.
Question:- I suggest to you that property at No.36,
Poes Garden, No.31-A, Poes Garden and Grape Garden at
Jedi Metla village near Hyderabad, the buildings therein
were all not disclosed by A1 in her IT returns filed before
the IT Authorities for the Assessment year 1993-94. What
do you say?
Ans: The purchase of the said properties had been
disclosed in the IT Returns. The constructions of buildings
have been shown in the IT returns for the year in which
the said construction was done.
A1 had deposited Rs.1,00,00,000/- as Cumulative
Deposit in Indian Bank, Abiramapuram Branch, Chennai in
June 1992. It is not true to suggest that A1 had not
produced the bills showing the purchase of building
materials used for construction made in the above
mentioned Chennai properties, before the IT Authorities. It
is not true to suggest that the valuation report Ex.D67
given by the registered valuers ANBU SIVAM CONSORTUM
is not correct and proper.

Question:- I suggest to you that the report Ex.D67
was prepared by the above valuer at the instance of A1-
Jayalalitha. What do you say?
Ans:He said that the said report was prepared by the
above valuer for submission before the IT Authorities, at
the request of A1.

The valuation report Ex.D67 pertains to immovable
property only. He was not present when the above
property was inspected by the said registered valuer.
According to him, against the order passed by the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal, a further appeal under Section260-
A of the I.T.Act would lie only on question of law but not
on question of fact. As against the order at Ex.D64 appeals
filed by the Revenue, in IT Appeals No.1007/Mds/99, IT
Appeals No.428/Mds/2000 and ITA No.429/Mds/2000 were
partly allowed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Bench-B Chennai. Under the said order ITA No.994/Mds/99
filed by the Assessee namely A1 came to be dismissed.
Cross-objections C.O.03-03 filed by the Assessee also
came to be dismissed as per the above order. He had not
represented A1 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Bench-B, Chennai. He does not know that against that
portion of the order under Ex.D64 which went against the
Revenue, the Revenue filed appeals before the High Court
of Tamil Nadu and those appeals are pending.
He does not have any document to show that he was
present when the Assessing Authority visited the premises
of Marble suppliers in Bombay namely M/s. Simplex
Enterprise, M/s New Diamond Granite Exports, M/s
Pashupathi Granite Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Elegant Marbles and
Granite Industries Ltd. The Assessing Authority while
recording the Sworn Statements of the above suppliers has
not made a record regarding his presence before him, for
the reason that there is no such practice of recording the
presence of Assessee's Tax representatives while recording
such Sworn Statements. He denies the suggestion that he
has no personal knowledge of the cost of construction of
buildings of Accused.
The sale deed at Ex.P1 dated 22.07.1991 pertains to
property No.31-A Poes Garden acquired by A1. Ex.P4
dated 22.09.1991 pertains to the land and building in
S.7
,
Thiruvika Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai acquired by
M/s. Jaya Publications. The sale deed Ex.P6 dated
29.05.1992 pertains to the Land and TANSI Foundry
(Defunct) in Thiruvika Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai
acquired by M/s Jaya Publications on the dates of above
sale deeds.
He was not appointed as Auditor by A3 Sudagaran at
any time. He has personal knowledge of the matters
relating to the marriage of A3, with regard to the issues
raised by the Income Tax Department in respect of A1. He
did not attend the marriage of A3. I have not gone through
the evidence given by DW84-O.S. Manian, DW31-Adhi
Raja ram and DW25-Thangamuttu before this Court. He
denies the suggestion that a revised return of income can
be filed only if the 1st return is filed within the due date. He
had represented on behalf of A1 during the re-assessment
proceedings.

Question:- I suggest to you that the appeal in IT
Appeal No.214/97-98 was filed on behalf of A1 before the
Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-I, Chennai,
subsequent to the filing of present charge sheet, with a
view to help the accused. What do you say?
Ans:- The appeal was filed by A1 on 1.5.1997 only
after the service of the assessment order. The assessee
had got 30 days time for preferring said appeal against the
assessment order dated 31.03.1997 for the year 1994-95.
He denies the suggestion that A1 did not actually
receive agriculture income of Rs.52.50 Lakhs during the
period 1991-1996. The new Farm House was constructed
in Jedi Metla property during the check period. He denies
the suggestion that DV & AC had correctly estimated the
value of new Farm House building in Jedi Metla property in
the charge sheet filed before Court. He denies the
suggestion that the food expenses during the marriage of
A3 were met by assessing the value of the construction of
the buildings in property No.36, Poes Garden and No.31-A,
Poes Garden. He denies the suggestion that persons
referred in Ex.D46 and Ex.D69 made false statements
before the Income Tax Department. He further denies the
suggestion that there was no contribution from the party
workers of AIADMK Party for meeting the decoration
expenses etc., during the marriage of A3-Sudhakaran. He
also denies the suggestion that those expenses were
actually met by A1 and she did so for the reason that A3 is
her fostered son. He denies the suggestion that Kanchi
Panneer Selvam (DW26), OS Manian (DW84), Adhi
Rajaram (DW31) and Thangamuttu (DW25) gave false
statements before the IT Authorities for favouring A1. He
denies the suggestion that DV & AC have correctly
assessed the value of the both movable and immovable
properties referred in charge sheet.
He denies the suggestion that he was not present at
the Grape Garden in Jedi Metla property near Hyderabad
when it was inspected by the District Valuation Officer
during the year 1997. He has produced any document
before the Court to show that he was present during visits
by District Valuation Officer. He could give the details of
the Cheque payments made to the Architect Mr. Vijaya
Shankar with regard to the work of designing the
Architecture of Farm House in Jedi Metla property and
building in No.31-A, Poes Garden. The details of payments
are found in the annexures to Ex.D211. Under the
assessment order, remanded the matter to the Assessing
Officer with direction to make a proper enquiry and make
proper assessment. But the Assessee preferred an appeal
against the order Ex.D74 and the 2nd Appellate Authority
restored the order which was passed by the Assessing
Officer, after setting aside the order Ex.D74. He also
denies the suggestion that the amount of Rs.2,15,00,012/-
as gifts by way of demand draft and cash, were not at all
received as such by A1 from the party workers and that
the said amount is her ill gotten money.
He has not gone through the order passed by the
Madras High Court in Crl. (Original) petition filed under

Section 482
Cr.P.C. He does not know that against the said
order passed by the Madras High Court, the CBI has
preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court.
He could give the details of the rental income from
house property, interest income from deposits, dividend
income from shares and agricultural income from
agricultural land derived by A1. The memorandum of
understanding marked as Ex.D213 has not been drawn on
a stamp paper. The said document does not speak
regarding the investment to be made by each of the
parties to the document. He does not know whether after
the completion of the work referred in Ex.D213 the parties
effected final settlement of account acceptable to both.
Ex.D213 does not specify whether parties to it namely A1
and M/s. J. Jay TV Pvt. Ltd. have to contribute the amount
for the work referred therein, equally or in proportions.
Ex.D214 which is another memorandum of
understanding dated 09.07.1994 has not been drawn on a
stamp paper. Even in this document there is no mention as
to the manner in which the investment is to be made by
the parties thereto for the execution of the work/project
referred therein. He does not know whether any final
accounting was made and accepted between the parties to
Ex.D214. He was not aware whether Dindugal Srinivasan
(DW91) had made any claim over the Gold Mementos
referred in Ex.D250 and Ex.D250-A, stating that those
items belong to AIADMK Party and they are to be returned
to the party, in between the date of seizure of those items
by DV & AC and the date on which the statement of DW91
was recorded before the IT Authorities. The letter as per
Ex.D250 along with the list Ex.D250-A was addressed by
the said Dindigal Srinivasan to the Assistant Commissioner
of Income Tax, Central Circle-II(2), Chennai on
19.03.2003.
Accused No.1 was also a partner in M/s. Shastri
Enterprises. He was not aware that during the check
period the said M/s Sasi Enterprises have also acquired
certain properties. Ex.P8 is a sale deed dated 30.09.1992
between TANSI and M/s. Sasi Enterprises. Ex.P23 is a
registered sale deed dated 22.01.1993 executed by one
Ramachandran in favour of M/s. Sasi Enterprises. Ex.P70 is
the registered sale deed dated 14.11.1994 executed by Mr.
Suresh Mittal, Managing Partner of R.M. Estate represented
by its Power of Attorney Mr. Umashankar Modhi, M/s
Feasta Properties Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Jaya Publications.
Ex.P127 shown to him is copy of Deposit Receipt
dated 07.09.1994 issued by M/s. Sriram Investments Ltd.
in favour of A1 for Rs.15,00,000/-. Ex.P128 is copy of
another deposit receipt dated 07.03.1995 issued by M/s.
Sriram Investments in favour of A1 for Rs.15,00,000/-
Ex.P129 is copy of deposit receipt dt.22.03.1995 for
Rs.10,00,000/- issued by Sriram Investments Ltd. in
favour of A1. Ex.P222 is a copy of invoice No.2295 dated
22.07.1992 pertaining to TATA Sierra Car in the name of
A1. Ex.P224 is a copy of invoice No.1787 dt.12.12.1994
issued in favour of M/s. Jaya Publications in respect of
TATA Mobile pickup van. Ex.P235 is a copy of invoice
No.109713 dt.25.1.1991 issued by Maruthi Udyog Ltd. in
favour of A1 in respect of Maruthi Gypsi-jeep. Ex.P245 is a
copy of invoice No.2986 dated 29.03.1991 issued by
Swaraj Mazda in favour of A1. Ex.P770 is a copy of sale
deed dated 24.01.1992 executed by M/s. Holiday Spots
Pvt. Ltd. in favour of M/s. Sasi Enterprises. Ex.P1903 is
copy of statement of account pertaining to Current Account
No.2047 of M/s. Jaya Publications with Canara Bank,
Mylapore, Madras. Ex.P1377 is statement of account
pertaining to current account no.23832 held by A1 with
Canara Bank, Mylapur Branch. Ex.P1382 is copy of
statement of account pertaining to current account
No.2018 of Accused No.1 with Canara Bank, Mylapur
Branch. Ex.P1254 is letter dated 15.12.1993 addressed to
Indian Bank, Abirampuram Branch, Madras by A1 and A2
as partners of M/s Sasi Enterprises and Ex.P1255 is
statement of account pertaining to Current Account
No.1044 of Sasi Enterprises with Indian Bank,
Abiramapuram Branch. Ex.P975 is statement of account
pertaining to S.B. Ac. No.38671 of A1 with Canara Bank,
Kellys Branch, Madras. Ex.D936 is statement of account
pertaining to the SB Account No.20614 of A1 with Central
Bank of India Secunderabad Branch, Hyderabad. Ex.P1012
is statement of account pertaining to current account
No.752 of M/s. Jaya Publication with Indian Bank,
Abiramapuram Branch. He denies the suggestion that A1
had not appointed him as her auditor at any point of time.
He has not looked into the evidence given by DW2
Natarajan before this Court. He denies the suggestion that
he has deposed falsely before Court and that he has done
so in order to help accused No.1. He denies the suggestion
that Ex.D213 and Ex.D214 are concocted documents.

N.R. Sandhya referred by him in his evidence is
mother of A1. The said N.R. Sandhya died in the year
1971. The acceptability or otherwise of the registered
valuers' report was decided by the IT Authorities after
verification and after receiving evidence in that behalf. The
memorandum of understanding Ex.D213 pertains to the
assessment year 1995-96. The expenditure statement
which was submitted before the Assessing Officer by A1 in
respect of user right granted to M/s. J.Jay TV was accepted
by the Assessing Officer as there was no contradiction
between the Assessee and M/s. J. Jay TV. Had Assessing
Officer not accepted the above expenditure statement
submitted by A1, the amount spent by M/s.J. Jay TV would
have treated as unexplained investment and same would
have been subjected to Tax. Such a thing was not done to
A1 in respect of the above amount during the assessment
year 1995-96.

DW.65 - Armugham, DW.66 - P.Jothi Murugan, DW.67 -
T.V.Malar Mannan, DW.68 - R. Velumurugan, DW.69 -
K.S.Arulmurugan, DW.70 - R. Rajendran, DW.71 -
B. Somasundaram, DW.72 - P.Rajesh, DW.73 -
G.Rjaraman speak about the agreement relating to
subject matter pertaining to Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd.,.
DW.65 deposes that he executed operator appointment
cum lease agreement in favour of Super Duper TV Pvt.
Ltd.,. He submitted an application to Super Duper TV Pvt.
Ltd., along with non refundable deposit of Rs.5,000/-.
DW.66 also contributed an application and also
deposit amount of Rs.5,000/- for obtaining lease of Cable
TV equipments. Similarly, DWs.67, 68, 69, 70 have
deposited Rs.5,000/- to Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd.,. DW.71
has executed appointment cum lease agreement as per
Ex.D100. He has paid Rs.5,000/- by way of non
refundable deposit. DWs.72 and 73 have also deposited
Rs.5,000/- by way of non refundable deposit to Super
Duper TV Pvt. Ltd.

DW.74 - B.Krishnamurthy has deposed that he was
working in Tamilnadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative
Society for about 25 years. They examined the silk sarees
and estimated their value as per Ex.P766. In Ex.P766,
there is no classification of sarees.

DW.75 - P. Suthanthira Kumar has deposed that he
retired as Executive Engineer, PWD Department, Tamil
Nadu. He was one of the Members of the Team of Experts
valuing some buildings. Team was entrusted with valuing
three blocks of building in Block No.7, East Coast Road,
Neelankarai, Chennai and a building at Industrial Estate
Area, Gundy. In the absence of requisite records, they
estimated the age of the building in Block No.1 and
determined the value adopting 1993-94 S.R. Rates.
Taking into consideration that the said building has been
constructed about 4 to 5 years prior to 1993-94 they
allowed the depreciation also. Ex.P673 is valuation report.
This report was not prepared in consultation with PW.117.
His signature was not taken for the reason he disagreed
with the method of valuation. In his opinion, valuation of
the block No.1 was unnecessary because the building was
constructed earlier to check period. In Ex.673
measurements are not shown. The schedule rate is not
attached to Ex.673. For non schedule items like marbles,
granites, tiles, one has to carry the sample and obtain
quotation from three different suppliers and adopt the
lowest rates quoted by those suppliers. In the present
case, value of such non schedule items has not been
determined as required.
Ex.P675 is the valuation report pertaining to building
in Guindy Industrial Estate. His signature was not found in
the Ex.P675. He did not sign the abstract sheet for the
reason figures shown therein could not be compared to the
figures shown in the working sheet.
Ex.P674 is the valuation report pertaining to workers
shed in Guindy Industrial Estate. He did not sign the
Ex.P674 for the reason that he was not provided details,
measurements and working sheets for comparison.

During cross examination, he denied the suggestion
that determining valuation of buildings, elevation, cross
sections are not necessary. He denied the suggestion that
it is not necessary to attach S.R. Rates to the valuation
report. He agreed that the marble granites and tiles were
non schedule items even during the year 1993-94.

DW.76 - M. Shanmugam has deposed that during the
year 1996 he was working as Assistant Engineer. PW.98
Velayudhan Executive Engineer issued orders to him for
inspection of the properties mentioned in Ex.P641 to
Ex.P645. Inspection was done by team of experts.
Following properties were inspected by them:
a. Property bearing No.L.66, Anna Nagar, Chennai

b. Property No.5, Murugeshan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai

c. Property No.3/178/C, Vettuvan Keni, East Coast
Road, Chennai

d. Property No.1, Murphy Street, Akkarai, Chennai

e. Building in Grape Garden at Jedi Metla near
Hyderabad.

During inspection, he did not enquire about the
materials used for construction of the building. He
prepared his notes. He handed over the same to PW.98 -
Velayudhan. He did not enquire about the age of the
buildings. No scientific tests or field tests carried out for
determining the age of the buildings. For determining the
age of the building, chemical test or cube test can be
conducted. In the present case, no tests were carried out
for determining the age of the building.

Ex.P641 was the valuation report pertaining to
building bearing No.L66, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Five
members have signed valuation report on different dates.
Team members are not competent to value the electrical
fittings. Team members did not ascertain the date when
the water connection was taken to the building. For non
schedule items, no quotations were taken from these
suppliers in open market. Schedule rate pertains to plinth
area, walls, windows, doors, plastering, painting, water
proofing material, weathering coats. Schedule rate does
not contain the rates of plumbing materials.

Ex.P642 is the valuation report pertaining to
Property No.5, Murugeshan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai.
Date of inspection is 23.10.96 by the team. Six members
signed the valuation report on different dates. He was not
having the working sheet. He signed the report on
27.9.96. The said report was not prepared in consultation
with him.

Ex.P643 pertains to valuation of building in property
No.3/178C, Vittuval Keni. Building was inspected by them
on 26.10.96, 25.10.96 and 28.10.96. On different dates,
Team Members have signed the valuation report. Building
was incomplete, construction might have commenced
about three or four months prior to the date of inspection.
Ex.P644 pertains to building bearing No.1, Murphy
Street, Akkarai, Chennai. Team inspected the building on
29.10.96 and 30.10.96. Team members signed the
valuation report on different dates. Valuation report was
not prepared in consultation with him. The measurement
sheets, working sheets, plan, cross section details referred
to in Ex.P641 to Ex.P645 are not attached to the
respective reports. Cost of construction will be less in rural
area than city area. Andhra Pradesh PWD schedule rates
were not available to them. They adopted the S.R. Rates
of Tamilnadu for determining the value of the building at
Jedi Metla. Age of building was 15 years prior to the date
of examination. Team members inspected the old
building. In the Ex.P645, valuation report, the cost of
renovation in respect of whole building is mentioned as
Rs.55,15,984/-. They did not obtain quotation in respect
of marbles, granites, wall cladding tiles for determining the
value of the work in respect of non schedule items. In
Ex.P645, there is an error in mentioning the value.
Quantity of work is 625 meters square. The rate is
Rs.5,000/- per meter square. 825 x 5000 will be
Rs.41,25,000/-. But the value mentioned as
Rs.82,50,000/- in the abstract. There is arithmetical error
in calculating the value. He had no knowledge of valuing
the Korean grass flower garden and curb walls. He
cannotsay the basis on which value work relating to
Korean grass i.e., item No.19 is mentioned as
Rs.22,32,500/-. The value of flower garden and curb walls
item No.20 of extract in Ex.P645 is mentioned as
Rs.2,65,500/-. The value in respect of said lump sum
items at Sl. Nos. 2, 3, 7, 11, 20, 22 and 23 referred in the
extract pertaining to the new building are items 8, 12, 13
of abstract estimate pertaining to renovation of old
building. Item No.2 of the old building pertains to
generator room. Item No.2 of the abstract estimate
pertains to construction of pump house, water tank. In
Ex.P645 there are only assumptive values. For non
schedule items, quotations were not called.
During his cross examination, he states that he has
signed valuation report i.e., Ex.P641 to Ex.P644. He
signed Ex.P645 pertaining to Jedi Metla after the
inspection. He has not given dissenting note to the Team
leader, but he dissented orally. He has not retained copy of
notes.

DW.77- K.R.V Ramani has deposed that during the year
1995,he was constituency Secretary for AIADMK Party for
Mylapur Legislative constituency. The marriage of V N
Sudhakaran (A3) took place on 07.09.1995. The said
marriage took place in Mylapur Area. During the said
marriage he did arrangements for the public procession, in
the matter of arranging Serial Lights, Banners, Flags,
Planting of Banana trees, Sound System etc. Normally,
when General Secretary of AIADMK party visited any area
the constituency secretaries used to contribute money for
the procession arrangements. Accordingly for the said
marriage procession arrangements the various
constituency secretaries of AIADMK Party including him
made contribution for the above procession arrangements
totally Rs.15,10,000/- was collected from 12 people from
various constituencies. Around Rs.15 Lakhs was spent for
above procession way arrangements.
Subsequently, on 28.09.1995 he received a notice
from Income Tax Department as per Ex.D136. The notice
was given to him almost about 2 weeks after the said
marriage. He appeared before the Income Tax Authorities
and gave them the particulars of persons who had
contributed monies for the said procession way
arrangements and he also furnished the details of
expenditure incurred. In the documents which are
produced by the Income Tax Authorities, he identifies
Ex.D137, as copy of the letter dated 19.10.1995 addressed
by him to the Assistant Director of Income Tax
(Investigation) Unit-III (1), Madras-34. To the said letter,
he also enclosed the list of persons who gave contributions
and also the details of the amounts spent.
The contributors referred in Ex.D137(a) were called
by the Income Tax Authorities and enquired. The said
contributors gave information to the IT Authorities and
confirmed the contribution made by them. His sworn
statement was also recorded by the IT Authorities on
5.3.1999 as per Ex.D138. He also produced the
Expenditure Bills before the IT Authorities. One of the bills
produced is found at Page No.52 of volume No.9 of
documents produced by the IT Authorities before this
Court as per Ex.D.151. The contributors referred in
Ex.D137 and also the contractors who executed the
decoration and other works for the said procession way
were also enquired by the IT Authorities. He was produced
27 bills which had been given to him by various
contractors. Those bills are Ex.D152(1) to Ex.D152(27).
On 04.09.1995 He made application to the Corporation
Authorities seeking permission for fixing Light Arches,
Tube Lights, Cut-Outs, Flags, Banners etc. on the
procession way for two days. The Corporation charge fees
for rendering their services. Ex.D153 is a copy of the
permission granted by the Corporation Authority on
06.09.1995. The Ex.D153(a) is the annexure to the said
permission. He had also given application to the Electricity
Board seeking temporary connection for supply of power
for lighting the procession way. The Electricity Board raised
Demand notices and they paid the amounts demanded by
the Electricity Board. Copies of the relevant application and
corresponding Demand notices sent by the Electricity
Board are Ex.D154(1) to Ex.D154(11).
He was an Income Tax Assessee even during the
year 1995. He disclosed this to the Income Tax Authority
during enquiry. Nobody insisted him to make contribution
or incur expenditure in connection with the above
marriage. In Ex.D137, there is also a note made regarding
the payment made to the Corporation through Cheque
even on 04.09.1995. The IT Authorities after enquiring him
and other contributors and also the contractors, accepted
the explanation.
During the cross-examination, he has deposed that
the marriage of A3 V.N.Sudhakaran (A3) took place in M R
C Nagar, Chennai. He was invited by both sides to attend
that marriage. He does not think that V.N. Sudhakaran
(A3) is foster son of A1-Jayalalitha. In Ex.D137 which is a
reply dated 19.10.1995 sent by him to the IT Authorities
there is a mention that V.N. Sudhakaran (A3) is foster son
of A1-Jayalalitha. In Ex.D137 in the column meant for
mentioning the name of the person on whose behalf the
payment had been made, he has mentioned the name of
All India Anna Dravida Munetra Kazhagama, Madras. He
denies the suggestion that A1 spent for the marriage of V.
N. Sudhakaran (A3) for the reason that V.N. Sudhakaran
(A3) is foster son of A1.
In Ex.D137(a),he has mentioned the names of 10
persons as those who made the contributions. He has not
issued any receipts in favour of those persons regarding
the monies given by them. He denies the suggestion that
the persons named in Ex.D137(a) did not make any
contribution and thereby receipts were not issued in their
favour. His name does not appear in bills which are
marked as Ex.D152(9) to Ex.D152(23). His name also
does not find a place in Ex.D154.
He does not remember, as to what was his annual
income during the year 1995-96. He did not make any
personal contribution in connection with the marriage of
V.N. Sudhakaran (A3) but he only collected the
contributions and spent that amount. He also denies the
suggestion that he has falsely stated before the Court that
the contribution to the tune of Rs.15,10,000/- were
collected by him in connection with the marriage of V.N.
Sudhakaran (A3). He further denies the suggestion that on
account of he being a member of AIADMK Party of which
A1 is General Secretary, he has falsely deposed before the
Court to help accused. He denies the suggestion that
Ex.D137(a) is a concocted document submitted to the IT
Authorities. He denies the suggestion that he made a false
statement before the IT Authorities as per Ex.D138 and
that he did so to help the accused. The said sworn
statement was recorded by the IT Authorities on
05.03.1999. He denies the suggestion that on account of
registration of the present case much earlier to the date of
Ex.D138, he made false statement before the IT
Authorities to save the accused.
DW-77 recalled and re-examined.
He had taken the help of many people for decorating
the procession route. His correct name is K.R. V Ramani.
By mistake in the deposition his name is typed as A.R.V
Ramani.

DW.78 - R. Raviraj has deposed that during the year
1995 he was working as Assistant Engineer, PWD
Department, Tamil Nadu. Ex.P671 is the Government
Order for assessing the value of Poes Garden, house
property of Accused No.1. The said property bearing
No.36, Poes Garden, consists of old building, garage block
and another five storied building bearing No.31A. Team
consists of 14 persons, out of which three were Electrical
Engineers and rest of them were Civil Engineers. All the 11
PWD Engineers referred in Ex.P671 did not sign the said
document. Out of 11 PWD Civil Engineers only 7 have
signed in Ex.P671. Building valuation can be done on the
basis of plinth area of building. The other method adopted
for building valuation is detailed method. The PWD
Services rates are in respect of general items only. Special
items are not covered in S.R. Rates. Non schedule items
no rates were fixed by PWD. Special items include marble,
granites, bathroom fittings etc. For fixing the value of
these special items, they will obtain quotations from three
local suppliers and accept the lowest quotation. The
quotation so received is to be annexed to the valuation
report. Ex.P671 would indicate that it comprised of special
items, flooring with granite slab, special granite slab
flooring, marble slab flooring, wall cladding with granite
tiles, wall cladding with special granite slab, wall cladding
with ruby red granite, wall cladding with ceramic tiles, wall
cladding with black colour granite slabs. The abstract
pertains to water supply and sanitary arrangements are
items 1 to 10 which are special items. In Ex.P671 he is
not able to state the basis on which the rates for special
items were adopted for making the valuation. The quantity
mentioned in the abstract can be arrived at only with the
aid of working sheets. The said working sheets do not
form part of Ex.P671. To arrive at the quantity in the
abstract in Ex.P671, the measurement in terms of length
and width are required. The same are not mentioned in
Ex.P671.
Ex.P672 is the layout plan. Measurements of new
constructions are not fully given. Without the cross
section details and also full measurement of all the
portions of the buildings, it is not possible to arrive at the
quantum of construction. For valuation of old buildings,
value of internal water supply, internal sanitary
arrangements, and internal electricity arrangements will
not be included. In case of valuation of new buildings, the
value of external water supply, sanitary arrangements will
be determined at 7.5% of the total cost of the building.
In case of renovation of building, internal water supply,
internal sanitary arrangements, internal electricity supply,
in respect of existing building, will not be included.
Ex.P672 does not mention the basis of the valuation of
furniture. Age of furniture is not mentioned. In Ex.P671
against several items it is mentioned lump sum. The lump
sum value is only presumptive value. Out of the said 29
acres, the value assigned for 21 items is a presumptive
value. In Ex.P672, complete measurement of the building,
namely, basement, ground floor and other floors are not
mentioned. In the absence of such details and
measurement, it is not possible to arrive at correct
quantum of value incorporated in the report. By looking at
Ex.P671 and Ex.P672 it is not possible to mention the
correct quantum of value. In the abstract pertaining to
compound wall, only quantity is mentioned and not
measurement in running feet in Ex.P671. By looking at
marble, granites slab, it is not possible to say when they
were laid.
During cross examination, he states that worksheets
are not attached. Ex.P671 is based on plinth area rate of
1993-94. Rate varies depending on quality and quantity of
wood. In the absence of working sheets, he cannot agree
with the quantity mentioned in the abstract in Ex.P671 or
based on the measurements recorded in the worksheets.
He did not involve in preparation of working sheets. He is
not competent to evaluate different varieties of wood used
in building. In respect of wooden doors, windows, value
will be determined by adopting PWD Rates.
DW.79 - A. Sundareshan, during the year 1996, he was
working as Assistant Executive Engineer. In Ex.P666 to
Ex.P669 shown to him, he identifies his signatures.

He has further deposed that Ex.P666 pertains to the
property bearing No.21, Padmanabha Street, T. Nagar,
Chennai. Ex.P666 valuation report was done between
15.10.96 to 16.10.96. He was having notes which were
prepared during inspection. The other Members of the
Team have not signed each of the pages in Ex.P666.
Ex.P666 was not prepared in consultation with all the
Team Members. The said property was in occupation of
tenant at the time of inspection. He does not expertise or
experience for assessing the value of electrical items. No
scientific method was adopted for determining the
valuation of the building mentioned in Ex.P666. If the
building is constructed under the supervision of the
Contractor, construction cost would be less. He is not
competent to value the marbles and granites. The samples
were not taken to any market for obtaining quotations.
The Electrical Engineers are competent to value the
electrical items. Considering the age of the building, SR
Rates of the relevant year of construction will be adopted
for finding the value of the items covered under the SR
Rates list. He further deposed that he inspected the
building bearing Nos.149 and 150, T.T.K. Road, Sriram
Nagar, Chennai. The building was inspected on 23.10.96.
The building was partly constructed. It was incomplete
building. Ex.P667 was not prepared in consultation with all
the Team Members. The drawing is not attached to the
report. He did not see the sanction plan pertaining to the
building during inspection. During inspection, they found
that basement floor was fully constructed and part of the
ground floor and part of the first floor has been
constructed. He cannot say whether side wall was
constructed in the ground floor at the time of inspection.

He has further deposed that RCC column was raised
to the height of 2.70 meters. Since the plan of the
building was not attached, he cannot say the basis on
which the area of the building was determined and
mentioned in Ex.P667. Detail measurements sheet was
not attached to Ex.P667 valuation report. About four
months time was required for construction of basement
floor. The schedule rates comprises of brick, sand, jelly,
wood and labor. During their inspection, they did not
ascertain as to what would have been the stage of
construction as on 30.4.96. During 24.10.96 and
25.10.96, the Team inspected the property bearing
No.1/240, Enjambakkam, New Mahabalipuram Road, Opp.
To VGP Golden Beach, Chennai. The valuation report is not
prepared with consultation of the Team Members. At the
time of the inspection of the building, construction was still
going on. During inspection, they prepared drawing of the
building. The said building drawing is not forthcoming in
the records. The detailed calculation of the areas
mentioned in page 7 of Ex.P668 is not available. He
cannot say the basis on which abstract found in page 13 of
Ex.P668 was prepared. The period of construction of
ground, first and second floor is not mentioned in Ex.P668.
They noticed the marbles have been stocked in the
building site, marbles were not laid. The window shutters
without glasses were stored in the construction site, but
they were not fixed. The owner representative was not
present at the time of inspection. If the owner supervised
the construction of building cost will be less. During
inspection, they did not ascertain rates of marbles which
were found stocked at the building. On 29.10.96 and
30.10.96, the Team inspected the property bearing Sl.
No.2/1B-3, APT Solinganallur Village, Saidapet Taluk. At
the time of signing the report, he was not having notes of
inspection. The drawings are not attached to Ex.P669. At
page 11 of the report, detailed measurement was not
noted. Without said detailed measurement, he cannot
confirm the quantum mentioned in Ex.P669. The owner of
the building was not present at the time of inspection.
They cannot carry out any scientific examination for
determining the age of the building.

During cross examination, he states that plan was
not given to him. He did not verify the title of the
property. He made notes, handed over the same to the
Team Leader PW.116 - Jayapal. He had no knowledge
regarding electrical works. They adopted the rate as given
by the Team Leader. It is true that in Ex.P666, there is a
mention that PWD S.R. Rates of the year 1994-95 has
been adopted for valuing the schedule items and market
rates are adopted for valuation of non schedule items. In
the said report, there is also mention about electrical
works. Two Electrical Engineers have accompanied them
during the said inspection. To a suggestion put to him that
Team ascertained the market rates of Marbles and
Granites for determining the value of those items, he
stated he did not know, but the rates as given by the
Team Leader was adopted. He denied suggestion put to
him that MMDA Plan permit was verified. He made notes
and he has given notes to the Team Leader. During the
inspection, the building measurements were taken. The
pits were excavated for ascertaining the year of
construction of the building. He does not know the
abstracts which are attached to the report Ex.P668 were
prepared at the spot by the Team. He did not prepare the
abstract.

DW.80- B.Vasudevan was working as Junior Engineer
(Retd.) PWD in Madras. Ex.P.1019 is the valuation report.
He did not see any photographs or video-graphs of said
marriage Pandal. No drawings pertaining to the said
marriage Pandal and stage were given by Vijaya Shankar-
Architect. He does not know where the said marriage
Pandal was put up. The investigation officer told him that
the said marriage Pandal was put up in MRC Nagar,
Chennai. He said that the measurements mentioned in
Ex.P.1019 are based on the instructions of the
investigation officer.
In the said report, the bifurcation of VIP portion and
Non-VIP portion in the name marriage Pandal was not
done by him. He said that the same was done at the
instance of the Investigation Officer. He did not really
obtain the details of Rose Wooden chairs etc. He did not
see any artificial fountain or Korean grass. The details
regarding Arches, Illuminations, Electric Bulbs and
Generators referred in Ex.P.1019 were given by I.O.
himself. They were required to prepare the report without
carrying out any inspection in their office itself.

DW.81- M. Karunakaran was working as Asst. Executive
Engineer in PWD at Thanjavur. During the year 1996, he
was part of a team which inspected immovable property at
Vandamapalaly village, Tiruvarur District. Ex.P.822 is a
valuation report pertaining to the said Rice Mill. The rates
for the materials and labour are arrived at adopting the
schedule of rates for the subsequent years of execution
and the individual values are worked out of each year and
the total amount works out to 139.56 lakhs. There is
addition of the words "for Civil Works and Rs.10.734 Lakhs
for Electrical works". There was no mutual consultation
amongst the team members before each of them signed
the above report. In Ex. P.822 there is a mention that the
year of construction of the buildings were ascertained from
the local public and the buildings were classified according
to the year of construction and the estimate have been
raised adopting rates of materials at respective year of
construction. He personally did not enquire any local public
during the inspection of the above Rice Mill regarding the
year of construction. He did not ascertain as to when the
power supply was obtained for the Rice Mill, when the plan
pertaining to the Rice Mill building was sanctioned by the
local authority and also as to when the license was
obtained for the said construction of the Rice Mill. There
was no representative of M/s. Ramraj Agro Mills present at
the spot. They did not conduct any scientific examination
of the building materials used in the said Rice Mill building.
He cannot say as to when the construction of the works
shown for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96 in the abstract
at internal page 219 of Ex.P.822, were commenced and
when they were completed. He does not know as to who
took the measurements of Rice Mill building. The work
sheet is not attached to the report Ex.P.822. Items like
marbles are not covered under the PWDs schedule of
rates. They did not send any sample of the Marble Slab,
laid in the said Rice Mill building, to any of the suppliers for
obtaining the quotations. They did not determine the
weight of the Iron Gate and the Grill.

DW.82- K. Ravi Manoharan was working as Asst.
Executive Engineer in PWD Sub Division, Medical Works,
Coimbatore. Ex.P.1964 pertains to the field No.4 in Sy.
No.168 of Kodanadu Tea Estate in Kotagiri Taluk. He did
not prepare any notes of inspection. He took the
measurement of the spot. He noted the nature of materials
used for the said construction in a separate sheet of paper.
The worksheet is not attached to the report Ex.P.1964. He
did not enquire about the ownership of the said property
inspected by them. The pipes which are non schedule
items are not covered under PWDs S.R. List. They did not
adopt this procedure while evaluating the pipeline. They
did not verify the length, diameter and thickness of the
Pipes used in the above work. When they went for
inspection, the building was under construction work was
going on.
During the cross-examination, it is not mentioned
that at the time of inspection the team noticed that the
construction work had commenced about 2 or 3 weeks
prior to the date of inspection. He was not furnished
working sheets.

DW.83- R. Senthil Kumar was working as Executive
Engineer in Tamil Nadu PWD Department at Chennai.
Ex.P661 pertains to the building in Siruthavur. Ex. P662
pertains to the building at Pyanoor. Ex.P663 pertains to
the building bearing No.487, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
Ekkattuthangal, Chennai. The property referred in
Ex.P.661 was inspected by their team from 25.10.1996 to
30.10.1996. The building was under construction. The
drawing was not attached to the valuation report. The
plan, detailed estimate and Data are not available in
Ex.P.661. By simply looking at the quantity mentioned in
the abstract one cannot determine the value without the
said, plan, detailed Estimate and Data. They had to call for
quotations from 3 local suppliers and calculate the value of
those non-schedule items on the basis of lowest quotation.
They did not secure sanctioned plan pertaining to the
building. They did not weigh the Rolling Shutter during
inspection to determine its value. The cost of construction
in case of supervision by Contractor will be 15% more than
the cost of construction done under the supervision of the
owner. There was no mutual consultation amongst the
team members before each of them signed on Ex.P.662.
The said drawing is not found attached in Ex.P.662. In the
said drawing they have mentioned the dimensions namely
length, depth, and width of the construction done. The
data sheet, detailed estimate and drawing are not attached
to Ex.P.662. The Well which was found in the above
property inspected, might have been sunk in about the
year 1984-85. The store room and pump room were also
constructed during the year 1984-85. For determining the
value of Wall and Well, they adopted the rate of
depreciation @ 1% per annum for 10 years. He is not a
competent to evaluate the Electrical works referred in
Ex.P.662. The abstract in Ex.P.662 contains in schedule
items, such as Marbles, Granites, and Ceramic Tiles. The
report Ex.P.663 pertains to the building bearing No.487,
Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Ekkattuthangal, Chennai. This
property was inspected by them from 4.11.1996 to
6.11.1996. During inspection, one MR. Balaji owner's
representative was present but they did not enquire about
the ownership of the above property. The property
inspected by them comprised of old building, new building
and building with AC sheet roof. The said old building
might have been constructed about 15 years prior to the
date of inspection. They evaluated the said old building
and assigned its value at Rs.50,88,119/- in the said report.

During the cross-examination, he has stated that
PW107-Mr. Swarnam, Executive Engineer was the team
leader. The property situated Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
Ekkathtuthangal Chennai belongs to M/s. Anjaneya
Printers Pvt. Ltd. He was not sure that the valuation of the
property was done on the basis of measurements taken.
But he gave the measurements and drawings to the team
leader. The construction of the building might have been
commenced about 6 months earlier to the date of
inspection. Whenever Teak Wood or Country Wood is used
in the construction of the building the PWD will notify the
rates of said wood every year. In Ex.P.663 there is no
specific mention that the building referred therein might
have been constructed about 15 years prior to the date of
inspection. He denies the suggestion that Ex.P.661 to
Ex.P.663 have been prepared scientifically after observing
all the technicalities and on the basis of the measurements
taken at the spot.

DW.84- O.S. Manian is a District Secretary of AIADMK
Party for Nagapattanama district. He was also a member of
Rajya Sabha at that time. In connection with the marriage
of A3-Sudhakaran, he spent for food arrangements. He
made the food arrangements for the party workers who
attended the said wedding. DW25-Thangamuttu and
DW31-Adhi Rajaram collectively made the said food
arrangements for the party workers. He arranged for
provisions and vegetables for feeding the said party
workers. He was assisted the by one N. Puraswamy,
Jeevanandam, Bharathi, Raju and Peruma. The said
persons arranged for supply of materials. The said persons
brought 4 cooks from Kumbakonam. Chief Cook was one
Gopal Krishnan. The others were Raja and Ganesh Iyer.
Each of the said cook was paid Rs.17,000/- for the services
rendered by them. Out of that Rs.5,000/- had been paid as
advance to each of them. For meeting the said
expenditure, they collected money from the party workers.
He personally gave Rs.2,000/- coconuts brought from the
coconut grove of his father in law and brother in law.
He further deposed that he enquired by the Income
Tax officers. Himself, Thangamuttu and Adhi Rajaram gave
a joint letter as per Ex.D.133. Nobody asked them to make
the above food arrangements on the said wedding of A3-
Sudhakaran. They made the said arrangement voluntarily.
During the cross-examination, he has deposed that
about 300 to 400 chairs were arranged in the each Pandal
for serving food. There was no separate Pandal for serving
food to VIPs and Non-VIPs. He voluntarily appeared before
IT Authorities and gave sworn statement as per Ex.D155.

DW.85- R.Murali was working as Manager (Administration
and Accounts) in M/s. Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd. It was
incorporated under the
Companies Act
, as per Ex.P.617.
Ex.P.618 is the Memorandum of Association. Ex.P.619 is
the Articles of Association. Ex.P 682 is the certificate of
Registration issued in favour of Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd.
Under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act 1959. The list
shown to him contains the names of 110 subscribers of
M/s. Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd. and also the lease
agreements executed by those subscribers. Approximately
more than 2300 persons got membership as subscribers
for M/s. Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd. At the time of getting
the membership each member paid Rs.5,000/- as non-
refundable entrance fee, to M/s. Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd.
They executed separate agreement in favour of M/s. Super
Duper TV Pvt. Ltd. The company supplies the equipment to
the 110 subscribers. He has verified 22 receipts books
which are marked in Ex.P.2341. The said receipt books
pertaining to the payment of entrance fee by the
subscribers who entered into agreement with M/s. Super
Duper TV Pvt. Ltd. and received the equipments for hire.
The company had current account No.1152 with Indian
Bank, Abiramapuram Branch, Chennai-18. Exs.D157 and
158 are the passbooks pertaining to the said current
account of M/s. Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd. with Indian Bank
for the year 1995 and 1996 respectively.
M/s. Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd. had made TV
Coverage of the marriage of A3-V. Sudhakaran. For that a
sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid by one Mr. Ramakumar to
M/s. Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd. The said Ramkumar is the
uncle of the wife of A3. The company is a proprietary
concern. The business of said proprietary concern Super
Duper TV Pvt. Ltd. continued even after the formation of
M/s. Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd.Ex.D.163 is the Invoice
bearing Sl. No.1 and 2 dated 17.11.1994 raised in favour
of M/s. Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.
for Rs.4,35,705/- in respect of the equipments supplied by
A3-Sudhakaran to the said Tourism Development
Corporation, Trichy Branch. In the same Book Invoice
Nos.3 and 4 raised in favour of M/s. Tamil Nadu Tourism
Development Corporation Ltd. for Rs.4,32,105/- in respect
of equipments supplied by A3 toThanjavur Branch of Tamil
Nadu Tourism Development Corporation. In the same Book
Invoice Nos. 5 and 6 dated 17.11.1995 for Rs.4,27,505/-
are in respect of equipments supplied to Chidambaram
Branch of TTDC. The said invoices have been raised by
Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd. and they are signed by one
Kuberan, who was working as assistant in the said
proprietary concern of A3 Sudhakaran. Photostat copy of
the statement of account pertaining to current account
No.1104 for the period 12.08.1994 to 23.08.1995 is
available in the unexhibited documents produced before
the Court by I.O. and seized during investigation. The
document is not marked as exhibit for the reason that it
does not bear a certificate as required under Banker's Book
Evidence Act. In this file at page No.11 there is bill dated
3.4.1995 raised in the name of the Director Information
and Public Relations, Fort Saint George, Secretariat,
Madras for the total amount of Rs.42 lakhs towards hiring
of High Brand cameras and Film camera and towards
shooting, editing and mixing cost of raw film. Out of the
said amount Rs.42 Lakhs, receipt of Rs.39,60,000/- by
way of advance as shown in the said bill and the balance
payable is shown as Rs.2,40,000/-. The said bill is at
Ex.D.164. In the same file, there is another bill dated
29.3.1995 raised in favour of Director, Information and
Public Relations for the total amount of Rs.16,86,200/-
being hire charges in respect of close circuit TVs taken for
World Tamil Conference held at Thanjavur during January
1995. In this bill, the total advance amount received is
shown as Rs.10,27,000/- the balance amount to be paid is
shown as Rs.6,59,200 as per Ex.D.165.
He further deposed that Ex.D.166 is the bill dated
7.2.1995 for Rs.45,000/- raised in favour of the Chairman
and Managing Director SIDCO, Gundi, Madras towards the
hire charges of CC TV and relay equipments. The amount
of Rs.45,000/- is received through cheque. Ex.D.167 is the
bill dated 7.11.1994 for Rs.2,40,000/- raised in favour of
Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers Co-operatives Society
towards charges for advertisements. The amount of
Rs.2,40,000/- was received through cheque. Ex.D.168 is
the bill dated 7.11.1994 for Rs.50,000/- in favour of M/s.
Nataraj Exports Corporation, T. Nagar, Madras. Ex.D169 is
the bill dated 21.10.1994 for Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of
Tamil Nadu Film Development Corporation. Ex.D.170 is the
bill dated 3.10.1994 for Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of M/s.
SPIC Fine Chemicals Ltd., Madras. Ex.D179(A) is the letter
dated 29.9.1994 addressed by M/s. SPIC Fine Chemicals
Ltd. to M/s. Super Duper TV. Ex.D.171 is the bill dated
29.9.1994 for Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of M/s. Chettinadu
Cement Corporation Ltd. Ex.D.172 is the bill dated
29.9.1994 for Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of M/s. Balaji Steel
Corporation Ltd. Ex.D.173 is the letter dated 29.9.1994
addressed to Super Duper TV by Balaji Steel Corporation
Ltd., enclosing Cheque bearing No.281531 dated
28.9.1994 for Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the Manager, Min
Bimangal, Mookambika Complex, Alwarpet, Madras
towards hire charges. Ex.D.175 is the letter dated
29.11.1994 addressed to M/s. Super Duper TV by Tamil
Nadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society enclosing
tax certificate in respect of the bill dated 7.11.1994.
Ex.D.176 is the letter dated 20.10.1994 addressed by
Tamil Nadu Film Development Corporation to M/s. Super
Duper TV enclosing cheque bearing No.485856 dated
20.11.1994 for Rs.1,50,000/-. Ex.D.177 is the letter dated
29.9.1994 addressed by Chettinadu Cement Corporation
Ltd. to M/s. Super Duper TV enclosing cheques bearing
Nos. 047085 and 047086 dated 29.9.1994 for Rs.50,000/-
each towards advertisement charges. Ex.D.178 is the
Invoice Book pertaining to Super Duper TV containing
carbon copies of the invoices issued from the period
14.9.1994 to 25.3.1995.
During the cross-examination, he states that he saw
the another remittance book containing counter foils of
used challans pertaining to Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd.
current account No.1152 with Indian Bank, Abiramapuram
Branch, Chennai-18. He saw the assessment order dated
30.3.2000 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income
Tax, Central Circle-II(4), Chennai. Ex.D.182- assessment
order reveals that according to the returns submitted by
Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd., a sum of Rs.11.40 Lakhs was
shown as receipts through cheques and DDs from 228
persons and a sum of Rs.36.40 Lakhs was mentioned as
credited to the Assessee's Bank accounts as cash receipts
from 728 persons. The said order pertains to the Super
Duper TV Pvt. Ltd. for the A.Y. 1996-97. Ex.D.183 is the
Assessment order dated 14.2.2001 passed in respect of
Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd. by the IT Authorities for the A.Y.
1995-96. This order would show that the Income Tax
Department had accepted the figure 62.15 lakhs shown as
receipts under the scheme deposit by the Assessee during
the assessment year 1995-96, in the returns filed. Portion
of the Assessment Orders Ex.D182 and Ex.D.183, the
assessee namely Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd had preferred
appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Authority and
those appeals came to be disposed of by common order
dated 25.02.2002. Ex.D.184 is the said order dated
25.2.2002 passed in IT Appeals No.155 and 156/2001-02
on the file of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
Central-II, Chennai-600034. He saw a list of receipts
issued by Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd in favour of 473 persons
named in the said list as per Ex.D.185. Ex.D.186 is the
applications of the list of 907 persons. They are
Ex.D186(1) to Ex.D.186(907). Ex.D.121 executed by the
subscribers in favour of M/s. Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd.
contains a clause or a mention that the entrance fee of
Rs.5,000/- payable by each of the subscribers is non-
refundable. Super Duper TV was started in the year 1994.
Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd. is not a cable operator. It only
supplies cable TV equipments to the cable operators for
doing their business. It does not provide the set-up boxed
to the customers. Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd. does not
telecast any channels. There were 29 cheques were
bounced. Ex.D.182 pertains to the assessment order for
the A.Y.1996-97.

DW.86 - R. Vaidhyanathan deposed that he is a Chartered
Accountant by profession. Since then he is associated with
Venkataraman and Co.,. He is competent to speak
regarding the files handled by Mr. G. Natarajan and Mr. B.
Gowthaman. He has seen the documents which are
produced before the Court by the Income Tax Department.
He filed income tax returns and Balance Sheet for the year
ending 31.3.96 filed by M/s. Meadow Agro Farms Ltd.,
before the Income Tax Department, namely, Central Circle
- II[4], Chennai. The Assessing Authority has done the
scrutiny of assessment in respect of this returns under
section 143[3] of the
Income Tax Act
. In the Balance
Sheet, the assessee has shown Rs.1,06,55,000/- as share
capital. Ex.D187 is the income tax returns. Ex.D188 is
the Balance Sheet. The year ending of both these
documents is 31.3.96. Along with Balance Sheet, the
assessee has filed schedule showing list of shareholders
who have contributed share capital amounting to
Rs.1,06,55,000/-. In the said Balance Sheet, a sum of
Rs.32,58,000/- is shown as amount contributed by sundry
creditors. The said Balance Sheet would show that M/s.
Meadow Agro Farms Ltd., has invested Rs.21,53,732/- on
fixed assets, namely, land. A sum of Rs.21,09,000/- on
shares in other companies. In the said Balance Sheet, a
sum of Rs.96,18,396/- is shown as amount advanced by
the company to others.

He has further deposed that M/s. Meadow Agro
Farms Ltd., lent Rs.32,90,000/- to Accused No.2 -
Sasikala and Rs.62,50,000/- to Jaya Publications.
According to the Balance Sheet, Ex.D192 for the year
ending 31.3.96, a sum of Rs.33,88,517/- was invested by
the Assessee on purchase of land. The receipt by way of
share capital was Rs.1,32,95,000/- and receipt from the
sundry creditors was to the tune of Rs.6,62,900/-.
Ex.D193, is the certified copy of the annual returns filed by
the said Assessee before the Registrar of Companies for
the year ending 31.3.96. The schedule therein contains
name of persons who contributed for share capital of
Rs.1,32,95,000/-. On the basis of the schedule Ex.D193,
he says none of the Accused have contributed for the
share capital of River Way Agro Products Ltd.,. Ex.D192
would reveal said Assessee has advanced total amount of
Rs.1,05,48,658/-, Rs.52,00,000/- to Accused No.2
Sasikala, Rs.3,00,000/- to M/s. Jaya Publications,
Rs.30,00,000/- to Coromandal Indag Group, Rs.2,25,000/-
to M/s. Lex Property Development Pvt. Ltd., Rs.4,75,000/-
to M/s. Meadow Agro Farms Ltd. After obtaining
clarification from the Assessee, the Income Tax
Department dropped the matter as per Note dated
30.3.2000. Ex.D195 is the returns filed by the Assessee
M/s. Lex Property Development Pvt. Ltd.,. The Balance
Sheet for the year ending 31.3.96 was prepared on 1.1.96
as per Ex.D196. On going through the Balance Sheet,
Ex.D196, he says that M/s. Lex Property Development Pvt.
Ltd., has invested in immovable property to the tune of
Rs.2,63,49,857/- during the year ending on 31.3.96.
According to the Balance Sheet, share capital was to the
tune of Rs.5,500/-. In the said Balance Sheet, it is
mentioned that share application money to the extent of
Rs.46,00,000/- was received by the said company during
the year ending on 31.3.96. As per Ex.D196, the company
has borrowed money to the tune of Rs.84,07,172/- from
Indian Bank, Abhirampuram Branch. The amount received
from sundry creditors was to the tune of Rs.2,04,98,350/-.
The Assessee has advanced a loan to the tune of
Rs.58,66,500/-, Rs.29,98,500/- to Accused No.3 V.N.
Sudhakaran, Rs.6,00,000/- to M/s. J. Farm House,
Rs.2,00,000/- to M/s. Meadow Agro Farms Ltd., and
Rs.2,00,000/- to Sasi Enterprises. The assessee has
received Rs.41,35,000/- from M/s. Bharani Beach Resorts
Pvt. Ltd., by way of share application money. M/s. Lex
Property Development Pvt. Ltd., has received
Rs.1,56,67,000/- from M/s. Kalyani Constructions Pvt.
Ltd., up to the year ending on 31.3.96. M/s. Lex Property
Development Pvt. Ltd., has received a sum of
Rs.45,00,000/- from M/s. Altaf Construction Pvt. Ltd., by
the end of the year 1995-96. The monies from M/s.
Kalyani Constructions Pvt. Ltd.,, Bharani Beach Resorts
and Altaf Construction Pvt. Ltd., were all received by M/s.
Lex Property Development Pvt. Ltd. through cheques. The
Income Tax Authorities accepted the returns filed by M/s.
Lex Property Development Pvt. Ltd., .

During cross examination, he states that
requirement of
section 224
and
of the Companies Act
were followed by the Department for appointing Mr.
Natarajan, Chartered Accountant as Statutory Auditor of
M/s. Meadow Agro Farms Ltd., and River Way Agro Farms
Ltd.,. He did not verify the documents relating to fixed
assets of the companies. The company followed
mercantile method of accounting. The nature of business
of M/s. Meadow Agro Farms Ltd., was to carry agro type
activity. But, they could not start the business. There
were no explanation claims for the year from 1.4.95 to
31.3.96. Ex.D187 is Income Tax Returns for the year
ending on 31.3.96 pertaining to M/s. Meadow Agro Farms
Ltd.,. Mr. A. Jayaraman one of the Directors of M/s.
Meadow Agro Farms Ltd., has signed the said returns. The
names of address of sundry creditors are mentioned in
Ex.D188. M/s. Meadow Agro Farms Ltd., has invested
Rs.21,53,732/- on fixed assets, namely, land as shown in
Ex.D188. M/s. Meadow Agro Farms Ltd., has advanced
loan to the tune of Rs.96,18,396/- as shown in the Balance
Sheet. Out of Rs.96,18,396/-, a sum of Rs.32,19,000/-
was given to Accused No.2 Sasikala as advance by M/s.
Meadow Agro Farms Ltd., for purchase of land. In the
Balance Sheet, it is mentioned that Rs.62,50,000/- was
advanced to M/s. Jaya Publications by M/s. Meadow Agro
Farms Ltd.,. He cannot provide confirmation receipt of the
said advance to Jaya Publications from M/s. Meadow Agro
Farms Ltd.,. The said advance amount was not repaid by
Accused No.2 Sasikala and M/s. Jaya Publications.
M/s. River Way Agro Products Ltd., invested
Rs.33,88,517/- on purchase of land as shown in the
balance sheet Ex.D192. M/s. River Way Agro Products
Ltd.,'s main source was share capital to the tune of
Rs.1,32,95,000/-. Without verifying the records, he
cannot say on which date Rs.52,00,000/- to Accused No.2
Sasikala, Rs.3,00,000/- to M/s. Jaya Publication,
Rs.30,00,000/ to Coromandal Indag Group and
Rs.2,25,000/- to M/s. Lex Properties Development Pvt.
Ltd.,, Rs.4,75,000/- to M/s. Meadow Agro Farms Ltd., by
M/s. River Way Agro Products Ltd., as shown in Ex.D192.
As on 31.3.96, M/s. Lex Property Development Pvt. Ltd.,
has only received share capital application and the
company and as on that day the company had not allotted
the shares to M/s. Bharani Beach Resorts Pvt. Ltd. An
amount of Rs.1,56,67,000/- was received as loan by M/s.
Lex Property Development Private Limited from M/s.
Kalyani Construction Pvt. Ltd., for business purpose. As on
31.3.96 the said loan amount was not repaid. Mr.
Jayaraman is Director of M/s. Meadow Agro Farms Ltd.,
and M/s. River Way Agro Products Ltd.,. Accused No.3 -
Sudhakaran and Accused No.4 - Ilavarasi were Directors
of M/s. Meadow Agro Farms Ltd. But, they were not
Directors of the said company as on 31.3.96. According to
Ex.D193, Accused No.3 - Sudhakaran and Accused No.4 -
Ilavarasi were Directors of River Way Agro Products Ltd.,
as on 31.3.96. Though he was not appointed as Statutory
Auditor for the above companies, he did carry on the audit
work of the said companies and his name is shown in the
letter issued by statutory auditors. M/s. River Way Agro
Products Ltd., has carried on business till 1995-96. M/s.
Lex Property Development Pvt. Ltd., has received rental
income during the period earlier to 1995-96. A perusal of
Ex.D195 does not reveal that apart from receiving rental
income, M/s. Lex Property Development Pvt. Ltd., has
carried on business earlier to 1995-96.

DW.87 - G. Srikanth has deposed that he passed final
C.A. Examination during the year 1991. He did
articles
work with M/s S.Venkataraman and Co, Chartered
Accountants, Chennai during the years 1988 to 1991.
Ever since then he has closely associated with the firms of
Chartered Accountants namely M/s.S.Venkataraman and
Associates and also M/s.G.Natarajan and Associates. He
has handled several files for both the said firms. He has
done the basic work and other works relating the
finalization of the audit reports of the clients of the said
firms. Based on the said basic work, the audit report used
to be prepared and thereafter the authorized member of
the above firms used to sign the audit report.
The accounts of M/s. Signora Business Enterprises
(P.) Ltd were audited by M/s G.Natarajan and Associates
Chartered Accountants with whom he was associated ever
since the year 1988. He has done the entire audit work
starting from verification of books of account of M/s
Signora Business Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, and ending with file
preparation including financial statement. Upon
completion of work, he used to have discussion with the
signing auditor of the said firm for finalization of the
report.
M/s Signora Business Enterprises (P.) Ltd is a
company incorporated under the companies Act.
Certificate of registration was issued to the said company
by the Registrar of Companies on 22.10.1990, as could be
seen from Ex.P586. Ex.P590 is Form No.32 filed by the
said company before the Registrar of Companies.
According to this document, A.3 Sudagaran was made
additional Director on 17.08.1994 and A.4 Ilavarasi was
made additional Director on 17.08.1994. Ex.P588 is the
Articles of Association of M/s. Signora Business Enterprises
(P.) Ltd. According to para.15 at page No.4 of Ex.P588,
for a person to become a director of the company it is not
necessary that he should be a shareholder. The registered
sale deeds whose certified copies have been marked as
Ex.P33 to Ex.P39 have been executed in favour of
M/s.Signora Business Enterprises (P.) Ltd on 21.01.1994,
06.12.1993, 31.01.1994, 24.05.1993, 24.06.1993,
24.06.1993 and 24.06.1993 respectively. A reading of
Form No.32 Ex.P590 with the above sale deeds would
indicate that accused No.3 Sudagaran and A.4 Ilavarasi
were not directors of M/s Signora Business Enterprises (P.)
Ltd. on the dates of the above sale deeds.
M/s. Indo Doha Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
is a public limited company incorporated under the
companies Act. M/s G.Natarajan and Associates Chartered
Accountants are the auditors of this company. He was
associated with audit work of the accounts of the said
company during the financial years 1994-95 and 1995-96.
As on 31.3.1995, the paid up capital of the said company
was Rs.97,00,000/- as reflected in the balance sheet-
Ex.D201. The said document is produced before theCourt
by Income Tax Department. The said balance sheet forms
part of the returns filed by the said company before the
Income Tax Department. Ex.D202 is copy of order
dt.28.08.2000 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) in Appeal No.144/1999-2000 preferred by the
said company. A reading of this order would show that out
of the entire share holding of the value of Rs.97,00,000/-,
9,69,400/- shares of the face value of Rs.10/- each were
purchased at the rate of Rs.6/- per share by A.2 N.Sasikala
and remaining shares were purchased by 6 other persons.
The order further reveals that the entire sale consideration
in respect of the above 9,69,400 shares was paid by A.3
Sudagaran.
As could be seen from the Profit and Loss statement
for the financial years 1994-95 and 1995-96, the said M/s.
Indo Doha Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. had done
business to the tune of Rs.90,00,000/- and Rs.49,08,584/-
(Total=Rs.1,39,08,584/-) by way of conversion and service
charges during the financial years ending on 31.03.1996
and 31.03.1995 respectively. The said Profit and Loss
statement for the above years is at Ex.D203.
The above amount of Rs.90,00,000/- had been
received by M/s. Indo Doha Chemicals and
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. during the year 1995-96 by way of
rentals from Southern Petro Chemical Industries
Corporation, as referred in the order Ex.D202. A combined
reading of Ex.D202 and Ex.D201 would show that M/s.
Indo Doha Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd had made
advances to the turn of Rs.73,63,665/- to various entities
during the financial year 1995-96. Out of the said amount
Rs.73,63,665/-, a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- had been
advanced by M/s Indo Doha Chemicals and
Pharmaceuticals Ltd to M/s.Meadow Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd.
and Rs.20,00,000/- had been advanced to one James
Fredrick.
He was also involved in the auditing of the accounts
of M/s.Ramraj Agro Mills Ltd for the years 1994-95 and
1995-96. According to the copy of Form No.3CA filed by
the M/s.Ramraj Agro Mills Ltd for the financial year 1993-
94, the said M/s Ramraj Agro Mills Ltd is a public limited
company. The said Form No.3CA is Ex.D204. The same is
attached to the returns filed by the said company.
Ex.D205 is certified copy of schedule - 5 pertaining to
M/s.Ramraj Agro Mills Ltd., obtained from the registrar of
companies. The said document would show that the said
company was incorporated during the year 1986.
Ex.P1350 is copy of Form No.32 filed by M/s Ramraj Agro
Mills Ltd before the registrar of companies. According to
this document, A.3 Sudagaran and A.4 Ilavarasi were
appointed as additional directors of the said company on
23.11.1994. In the said Volume No.5 of documents
produced by Income Tax Department before court the
balance sheet of the said company for the year 1993-94
alone is available.
As per copy of the balance sheet of the said
company for the year ending 31.3.1995 available with him,
the total value of land held by the said company was
Rs.14,39,446/-. Out of that the value of the land acquired
by the said company during the year 1994-95 was
Rs.8,43,000/-. Copy of the auditor's report together with
balance sheet and other attachments for the year ending
31.3.1995 is Ex.D206. (Since the original balance sheet,
etc., produced before the Income Tax Department by the
said company, has not been produced by the Income Tax
Department before this court, even after summons being
issued, the secondary evidence is permitted). Similarly
copy of the balance sheet, Profit and Loss statement and
schedule for the year 1995-96 pertaining to the said
company is Ex.D207. On the basis of Ex.D206 and
Ex.D207 he said that that M/s Ramraj Agro Mills Ltd had
spent a sum of Rs.62,57,000/- towards construction during
the year 1994-95 and 1995-96. From the said documents
it can be further said that the said company had received
Rs.1,43,87,336/- by way of secured loan from Banks and
financial institutions during the year 1994-95. The said
company had also received unsecured loan to the extent of
Rs.75,30,561/- during the said year. During the year
1995-96 the said company had received a sum of
Rs.1,00,00,000/- from Maguntha Investments. The said
Maguntha Investments had issued a confirmation letter as
per Ex.D208 on 08.02.1996. From the schedule to the
balance sheet for the year 1995-96 it can be said that
during that year the said company had received back a
sum of Rs.40,00,000/- placed as deposit during earlier
years. The above money transactions are carried through
Banking and Financial Institution and by cheques. From
these records, He could only say that the above accused
have not pumped any funds into the said company for the
acquisition of the above properties. From the above
financial statements, it can be said that M/s Ramraj Agro
Mills Ltd had enough funds for making the above
purchases.
During the cross-examination, he has deposed that
he completed graduation in the year 1988. He started
Article ship with Mr.G.Narayanaswamy Chartered
Accountant and senior partner in M/s S.Venkataraman and
Co., Chartered Accountants, Chennai, in the month of
August 1988. He completed Articleship under said
Mr.G.Narayanaswamy in August 1991. Till then he worked
in M/s.S.Venkataraman and Co., under said
Sri.G.Narayanaswamy. He worked in M/s.S.Venkataraman
and Co., Chartered Accountants between 1988 and 1991.
He was not employed in M/s.G.Natarajan and Associates.
He was also not a partner in M/s G.Natarajan and
Associates Mr.G.Narayanaswamy, Mr.Seetharaman,
Mr.Kabirdas and one lady whose name he has forgotten
were working as Chartered Accountants in
M/s.S.Venkataraman and Co, when he joined that firm as
an Article. In between 1988 and 1991 there was re
constitution of firm M/s S.Venkataraman and Co.,
Chartered Accountants. Mr.G.Natarajan, Mr.Bhaskar and
Mr.Vaidyanathan (DW.86) were the partners in M/s
G.Natarajan and Associates. He does not know the date
on which DW.86 Vaidyanathan became a partner in M/s
G.Natarajan and Associates. He has not gone through the
deeds of partnership of the firm M/s S.Venkataraman and
Co, and M/s G.Natarajan and Associates. He has not gone
through the deeds of partnership of the firms M/s
S.Venkataraman and Co, and M/s G.Natarajan and
Associates. He has brought a declaration letter from
Mr.G.Natarajan Chartered Accountant and senior partner
of M/s Nataraj Associates to the effect that he associated
with the said firm since 1991. It is a partner who is
competent to give evidence on behalf of a partnership
firm. He denies the suggestion that he was not competent
to give evidence in this case on behalf of M/s G.Natarajan
and Associates Chartered Accountants, on account of he
being not a partner of the said firm. He has not obtained a
declaratory letter from M/s S.Venkataraman and Co.,
M/s Nataraj and Associates were appointed as
statutory auditors for M/s Signora Business Enterprises
Pvt. Ltd for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96. He has not
signed any documents pertaining to M/s G.Nataraj and
Associates to show that he was associated with that firm
and that he was involved in finalization of the accounts of
M/s Signora Business Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, since those
papers are signed only by the statutory auditors. The
audit report pertaining to M/s.Signora Business Enterprises
Pvt. Ltd does not make a mention of his name. He does
not know whether there is any difficulty for the partners of
M/s S.Venkataraman and Co. and M/s Nataraj Associates
to appear before this court and give evidence on behalf of
respective firms. The said firms have not issued any letter
of authorization in his favour for giving evidence in this
case on their behalf.
From Ex.P590 he said that Mr.Narayana Rao and
Mr.V.Sai Basker Reddy who were directors of M/s Signora
Business Enterprises Pvt. Ltd ceased to be directors from
29.08.1994. Accused No.3 Sudagaran and Accused No.4
Ilavarasi were made additional directors of said company
on 17.08.1994 as per Ex.P590. On the date of execution
of sale deed Ex.P33 dt.31.01.1994 accused Nos.3 and 4
were not the directors of M/s Signora Business Enterprises
Pvt. Ltd. The names of the directors who represented M/s
Signora Business Enterprises Pvt. Ltd under Ex.P33 is not
mentioned. From the said document, it was not possible
for him to say as to who signed the said document on
behalf of M/s Signora Business Enterprises Pvt. Ltd at the
time of registration of the sale deed. Similarly in the
certified copies of the sale deeds marked as Ex.P34 to
Ex.P39 the names of the persons who represented M/s
Signora Business Enterprises Pvt. Ltd are not mentioned.
But the name of one Srinivasan is mentioned after the
name of M/s Signora Business Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
According to Ex.P587, Mr.V.Sai Bhaskar Reddy and
P.Narayana Rao were the subscribers to the memorandum
of association pertaining to M/s Signora Business
Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. According to Ex.D202 the appeal
under the
Income Tax Act
was filed by M/s.G.Natarajan
and Associates on behalf of the assessee M/s Indo Doha
Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. There is a
mention in Ex.D202 that the entire sale consideration was
paid by accused No.3 V.N.Sudhakaran (A-3) and same was
duly accounted for in his I.T.Returns. He does not know
the reason as to why out of Rs.97,00,000/-, being the
purchase value of shares, Rs.96,94,000/- (Value of
9,69,400 equity shares purchased by A.2 N.Sasikala@
Rs.6/- per share) was paid by V.N.Sudhakaran (A-3). He
does not know the basis on which the price of each share
was determined @ Rs.6/-, by the parties to the share
transaction. After admission of A.3 and A.4 as additional
directors of M/s Signora Business Enterprises Pvt. Ltd
intimation was sent to the Registrar of Companies and
other statutory compliances were made. He could not say
whether on the admission of accused Nos.3 and 4 as
additional directors of M/s Signora Business Enterprises
Pvt. Ltd. there was any change in the articles and
memorandum of association of said company.
In respect of the business done by M/s Indo Doha
Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd during the financial
year 1994-95 and 1995-96 to the tune of
Rs.01,39,08,584/- there was deduction of income tax at
source in respect of Rs.1,20,00,000/- worth business as
could seen from TDS certificate and said deduction income
tax at source is done by the customer M/s Southern Petro
Chemical Industries Corporation. The said amount of
Rs.1,20,00,000/- was the lease amount paid by M/s
Southern Petro Chemical Industries Corporation to M/s
Indo Doha Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The name
of Southern Petro Chemical Industries Corporation is not
mentioned in the Profit and Loss account of M/s Indo Doha
Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals as per Ex.D203 for the
year ending on 31.03.1995 and 31.03.1996. Similarly in
the balance sheet Ex.D201 the name of Southern Petro
Chemical Industries Corporation is not mentioned. During
the audit of the accounts of M/s Indo Doha Chemicals and
Pharmaceuticals he went through the document that was
executed between Indo Doha Chemicals and
Pharmaceuticals he went through the document that was
executed between Indo Doha Chemicals and
Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Southern Petro Chemical
Industries Corporation. He was not in possession of that
document. He could not recollect the date of execution of
the above document namely lease deed and also the term
of lease, at this point of time. The lease amount was
Rs.7,50,000/- per month. He had not submitted copy of
the lease deed to the Income Tax Department. He does
not know the purpose for which M/s Indo Doha Chemicals
and Pharmaceuticals Ltd had advanced Rs.25,00,000/- to
M/s Meadow Agro Farms Ltd and Rs.20,00,000/- was
advanced by said Indo Doha Chemicals and
Pharmaceuticals to one Jame Fredric.
He does not know that M/s Meadow Agro Farms Ltd
was not a sister concern of M/s Indo Doha Chemicals and
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. He also does not know that the said
James Fredric was in no way concerned with M/s Indo
Doha Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. To his
recollection, the above amounts were not repaid by M/s
Meadow Agro Farms Ltd and Mr.James Fredric to M/s Indo
Doha Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. No interest was
charged on the above advances made to M/s Meadow Agro
Farms Ltd and Mr.James Fredric. During the process of
audit he did not obtain conformation of above advances,
from M/s Meadow Agro Farms Ltd and Mr.James Fredric.
In para.5 of the order Ex.D202 the breakup of
Rs.73,63,665/- which is shown in the balance sheet of M/s
Indo Doha Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd under the
head "Loans and Advances" for the year ending on
31.3.1996, the break up is given as under:
ED Modvat Balance 28,038
James Fredrick 20,00,000
Meadow Agro Farms 25,00,000
Tax deducted at source 26,44,208
Deposits 1,91,419
Total 73,63,665
He was not in possession of any confirmation letter
from James Fredrick and M/s Meadow Agro Farms Ltd.
During the audit of the accounts of M/s Ramraj Agro
Mills Ltd he observed that there was no internal audit
system commensurate with the size of the company.
Form Ex.D208 it was not possible for him to say the
purpose for which the amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- was
taken as loan by M/s Ramraj Agro Mills Ltd from Maguntha
Investments during the year 1995-96. In Ex.D208, it is
mentioned that the above amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- was
given as Inter Corporate Deposit (ICD). To his
recollection, this amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- was not
returned by M/s Ramraj Agro Mills Ltd to Maguntha
Investments. He was unable to say from the records
whether any interest was paid on the above amount of
Rs.1,00,00,000/- by M/s Ramraj Agro Mills Ltd to
Maguntha Investments.
As could seen from Ex.D201 M/s Indo Doha
Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd were due
Rs.1,37,71,022/- during the year ending on 31.03.1995
and Rs.91,04,598/- during the year ending on 31.03.1996,
to State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu
Ltd (S
IPC
OT-for short). M/s Indo Doha Chemicals and
Pharmaceuticals Ltd had repaid the above loan to the
extent of Rs.46,66,424/- during the year ending on
31.03.1996.
Question: What was the source for M/s Indo Doha
Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd for making repayment
to the tune of Rs.46,66,424/- to S
IPC
OT during the year
1995-96?
Ans:- In the balance sheet Ex.D201 a sum of
Rs.20,36,618/- is shown as reserve and surplus available
with M/s Indo Doha Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals during
the year 1994-95 and a sum of Rs.69,13,037/- is shown as
reserve and surplus available with M/s Indo Doha
Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals in the year 1995-96. The
difference amount is Rs.48,76,419/-. With this amount
M/s Indo Doha Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd could
repay the loan to S
IPC
OT to the tune of Rs.46,66,424/-
during the year 1995-96.
There is no specific mention in Ex.D201 that M/s
Indo Doha Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd made
repayment to the tune of Rs.46,66,424/- to M/s S
IPC
OT
during the year 1995-96. They did not physically verify
the fixed assets of M/s Indo Doha Chemicals and
Pharmaceuticals Ltd as shown in Ex.D201. The said figure
was mentioned on the basis of the invoices pertaining to
those fixed assets and the entries in the fixed assets
register. The said invoices and the fixed assets register for
the years 1994-95 and 1995-96 pertaining to M/s Indo
Doha Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd are not before
the Court.
The details of current liabilities of M/s Indo Doha
Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd as per the figures
mentioned in Ex.D201, are given in schedule E to the
balance sheet. In schedule E to the said balance sheet, a
sum of Rs.45,00,000/- is shown under the head current
liabilities, with respect to the deposit from SPIC (Southern
Petro Chemical Industries Corporation).
Question:- At page.124 para 2.1 in Ex.D202 the amount
of share capital is extracted as Rs.9.95 Crores, from
assessing officer's order by the appellate authority. Can
you give the breakup of the share holding in M/s Indo
Doha Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd during the
assessment year 1995-96.
Ans:- By typographical error the amount of share capital is
shown as Rs.9.95/- Crores in para 1 of the assessing
officers' notice
u/S 148
of Income Tax Act, extracted in
para 2.1 of Appellate Authority Order Ex.D202. But in
Ex.D201 namely the balance sheet of M/s Indo Doha
Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd for the said
assessment year the share capital amount is shown as
Rs.99,95,000/- (Value of 09,95,000 shares). Out of this
09,69,400 shares were held by accused No.2 Sasikala and
100 shares each were held by Thangamani, Mrs.Mala,
Shanmugham, Vivekanandan, Shivakumar and Kumar as
per the details given in para.4.1 of the appellate order
Ex.D202.

The above said 7 persons purchased the entire share
holding of M/s Indo Doha Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals
Ltd, from the then existing shareholders. M/s Indo Doha
Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd were manufacturing
certain chemicals used for the manufacture of the
detergents. After the above said 7 persons acquired the
share holding, there was no change in the business of M/s
Indo Doha Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Without
referring to the documents pertaining to the year 1994-95
and earlier periods he could not say whether M/s Indo
Doha Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd were carrying on
above business of manufacture of chemicals earlier to
1994-95. The said M/s Indo Doha Chemicals and
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. were following mercantile system of
accounting since its inception. He said so because every
company incorporated under
Indian Companies Act
and
engaged in such business is required to follow mercantile
system of accounting from the beginning. The said
company had followed the guide line issued by the
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI-for short)
in the maintenance of accounts. All the income and all
items of expenditure were shown in the profit and loss
account of the said company. The balance sheet which is
produced before the Court is not accompanied by the bills
and vouchers pertaining to income and expenditure. There
are no prior period items of income and expenditure,
shown in the balance sheet pertaining to M/s Indo Doha
Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd for the assessment
year 1995-96 and 1996-97. Other than the items shown
in the balance sheet, there were no claims against the said
company. No personal expenses were claimed in the said
account of M/s Indo Doha Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals
Ltd. During the process of auditing he verified each bill
and voucher pertaining to the transactions of the said
company. He has obtained a certificate from M/s Indo
Doha Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd to the effect that
no cash payment has been made in respect of any
payment in excess of Rs.20,000/-. The said certificate is
not enclosed to the balance sheet. He did not have the
Permanent Account Number and I.T. Returns of A.2
Sasikala and A.4 Ilavarasi.
Ex.D201 doesn't bear the seal and signature of M/s
Nataraj Associates Chartered Accountants or any other
auditor. He has not produced the audit program sheet and
audit query sheet pertaining to the accounts of M/s Indo
Doha Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd, M/s Ramraj Agro
Mills Ltd and M/s Signora Business Enterprises, before
court. He denies the suggestion that he has not audited
the account of any of the above companies and that he has
deposed falsely before the Court and that he has done so
in order to help the accused.

DW.88 - Soundara Velan was the Chartered Accountant.
He handled the accounts of M/s.Jaya Publications and
M/s.Sasi Enterprises, personal account of A-2 and certain
Firms concerning her. M/s.Jaya Publications is a
Partnership Firm. From 1990 onwards, A-1 and A-2 were
Partners. A-1 has executed Power of Attorney in favour of
A-2 for managing the affairs of Jaya Publications.
Ex.P.995 is the copy of the said Power of Attorney dated
27.2.1992. Jaya Publications was publishing a Daily
Newspaper, viz. Namadu MGR. Besides, it carries on
printing work on job order basis. News items pertaining to
All India Anna DMK and messages of General Secretary,
i.e. A-1 used to be published.
He further deposed that in the year 1990, in order to
improve the circulation of the said Newspaper, a subscriber
deposit scheme was introduced. Under the said scheme,
subscriber had an option of depositing Rs.12,000/-,
Rs.15,000/- or Rs.18,000/- with Jaya Publications.
Depending upon the deposit of the subscribers, the
subscribers would get 4, 5 or 6 free copies of the said
Newspaper daily. The concerned subscriber would get
refund of the said deposit amount by giving 15 days' prior
notice. Assessee was brought into the Central Circle of
Income Tax. The accounts were scrutinized by the Income
Tax Department under
Section 143(3)
of the Income Tax
Act. The IT authorities would scrutinize each item of
income as well as expenditure. Under
Section 142(2A)
of
the Income Tax Act, there is a provision for appointing the
Special Auditor. Sri P.B.Vijaya Raghavan and Co.,
Chartered Accountants were appointed as Special Auditor
for auditing the accounts of M/s.Jaya Publications for the
assessment year 1994-95. During the said audit period,
he personally produced the books of accounts of the
assessee before the Special Auditors. The Special Auditor
examined the Cash Book, Journal Register, Stock Register,
General Ledger, Records for Agricultural Income, etc. and
drew Ex.P.217-Special Audit Report. He can identify
Exs.D.218, D.219 and D.220, copies of the IT returns filed
by M/s.Jaya Publications for the assessment years 1991-92
to 1994-95 on 6.11.1998. Ex.D.221, D.222, D.223 are
copies of the IT returns for the assessment years 1995-96
and 1996-97. Balance sheet for the assessment years,
1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 are not available in the
records produced by the Income Tax Department. Hence,
he has produced the attested copy of the balance sheet
and profit and loss account of Jaya Publications for the
years ending on 31.3.1994, 31.3.1995 and 31.3.1996.
They are at Exs.D.224 to D.226. During the scrutiny of
accounts, IT authorities required the assessee to produce
the list of subscribers of the above mentioned deposit
scheme. The said lists were produced by the assessee.
From the said list, the IT authorities segregated the names
of the subscribers district-wise and sent the same to the
respective District IT authorities for verification. In turn,
the respective Income Tax Officers of the Districts
summoned the subscribers and recorded their statements.
The said statements were thereafter sent to the Central
Circle Office along with the report. Ex.D.227 is the report
of subscribers of Coimbatore District. The concerned
Assessing Officer has furnished a format to each of the
subscriber and those forms were filled by the subscribers
giving details of amount deposited by each of them.
Confirmation letters were produced by the assessee
confirming the deposit. The order of the Commissioner of
Income Tax Appeal, Central-II, in I.T.Appeal
Nos.144/2001, it is mentioned that the said confirmation
letters being voluminous, are not produced before the
Court. With regard to 286 letters of confirmation from
depositors relating to assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-
94 of Jaya Publications under the above mentioned deposit
scheme referred in the assessment order dated 26.3.2001
made under Section 144 read with
Section 251
of the
Income Tax Act, it is mentioned that those documents
being voluminous, they are not produced. Similarly, at
Sl.No.75 with regard to 1005, confirmation of letters of
depositors for the assessment years 1993-94, it is
mentioned that the documents being voluminous, they are
not produced. The accused have now produced the list of
subscribers of above deposit, with their names and
addresses and also the amounts subscribed for the
assessment years 1991-92 to 1996-97. The said list
comprises of 6 books and they are Ex.D.229(1) to
Ex.D.229(6). The above list had been submitted to the IT
authorities and they segregated the names of the
subscribers district wise and sent those lists to the
respective assessing officers of each district for enquiry
and report. The accused have also produced the
applications given by the scheme depositors. Those
applications are contained in 18 files. The said files are
Ex.D.230(1) to Ex.D.230(18). To his knowledge, there are
about 9,000 such depositors. The Assessing Officer did not
accept the reports of the respective district. Assessing
Officer of Central Circle-II passed assessment order on
26.3.2001 for the assessment year 1991-92. Aggrieved by
the same, I.T.Appeal No.144/2001-02 was preferred. The
appellate authority accepted the case of the assessee
regarding scheme deposit collection. Ex.D.232 is the order
of the appellate authority.
Appeal was also preferred against the assessment
order pertaining to 1993-94 in I.T.Appeal No.142/2001-02.
The appellate authority passed on order on 28.3.2002.
With regard to the assessment for the years, 1994-
95 to 1996-97, the Assessing Officer summoned the
subscribers of all the districts and recorded their sworn
statement. The assessing officer passed an order partially
allowing the claim made by the assessee in respect of the
deposit scheme. Appeal was preferred before the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The claim of the
assessee was partially accepted. Aggrieved by the same,
the assessee preferred an appeal before the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal. The Department also preferred an
appeal. After hearing, the appellate tribunal passed a
common order, accepting the claim of the assessee
regarding the deposit scheme except in respect of 41
deposits. In respect of 41 depositors, the case was
remanded to the assessing officer with a direction to give
an opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine those 41
depositors. That remanded enquiry is respect of 41
depositions is still pending. The said order passed by the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 30.11.2007 in IT Appeal
Nos.1130/Mds/2003, 1151, 1152, 1153, 1154/Mds/02 and
1693/Mds/03 in respect of assessment years 1994-95 to
1999-00 is available in Volume No.3 of the records
produced by the Income Tax Department, at pages 251 to
279. The same is Ex.D234. The total amount received by
Jaya Publications under the above deposit scheme from its
subscribers is Rs.14,23,89,000/-. This figure is mentioned
in the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax
in the appeals filed before him, and the order passed by
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The above amount
had been collected from the subscribers by the Jaya
Publication in cash during the period of 6 years and the
amounts so collected used to be remitted to Bank accounts
of Jaya Publication (Cash Credit Ac.No.2047 with Canara
Bank, Mylapur Branch, Chennai) and Namadu MGR
(Current Account No.1952 with Canara Bank Mylapur
Branch). The main sources of income for Jaya Publication
were sale of news papers, advertisements and work on
printing on job work basis. These incomes have been
assessed by the Income Tax Department. As per the profit
and loss account statement the net profit derived by Jaya
Publications from the above sources of income during the
assessment years 1992-93 to 1996-97 (5 years) was
Rs.1,15,94,848.60 paise. On account of the increase in
the number of readers Namadhu MGR newspaper year
after year, there was corresponding increase in the
purchase of paper for news print and other items. In this
regard there was an enquiry by the I.T. Authorities.
During the said enquiry the assessing officers had
summoned the suppliers of the above paper and other
news print materials and enquired them.
In the year 1988, Sixteen thousand (16,000) copies
of Namadhu MGR news paper used to be printed every day
by Jaya Publication for circulation. The said number
increased to Thirty thousand (30,000) per day in the year
1990. Then said number further increased to Sixty
thousand (60,000) in the year 1995-96. The said number
further increased to Seventy thousand (70,000) in the year
1996-97. On account of increase in the number of readers
year after year, the consumption of printing paper and
other suppliers of the said materials, the income tax
assessing officers accepted the claim of Jaya Publications.
That remanded enquiry in respect of 41 depositions
is still pending. The said order passed by the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal on 30.11.2007 in IT Appeal
Nos.1130/Mds/2003, 1151, 1152, 1153, 1154/Mds/02 and
1693/Mds/03 in respect of assessment years 1994-95 to
1999-00 is available in Volume No.3 of the records
produced by the Income Tax Department as per Ex.D234.
The total amount received by Jaya Publications under the
above deposit scheme from its subscribers is
Rs.14,23,89,000/-. This figure is mentioned in the orders
passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax in the appeals
filed before him, and the order passed by the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal. The above amount had been collected
from the subscribers by the Jaya Publication in cash during
the period of 6 years and the amounts so collected used to
be remitted to Bank accounts of Jaya Publications (Cash
Credit Ac.No.2047 with Canara Bank, Mylapur Branch,
Chennai) and Namadu MGR (Current Account No.1952 with
Canara Bank Mylapur Branch). The main sources of
income for Jaya Publications were sale of news papers,
advertisements and work on printing on job work basis.
These incomes have been assessed by the Income Tax
Department. As per the profit and loss account statement,
the net profit derived by Jaya Publications from the above
sources of income during the assessment years 1992-93 to
1996-97 (5 years) was Rs.1,15,94,848.60 paise. On
account of the increase in the number of readers Namadhu
MGR newspaper year after year, there was corresponding
increase in the purchase of paper for news print and other
items. In this regard, there was an enquiry by the I.T.
Authorities. During the said enquiry, the assessing officers
had summoned the suppliers of the above paper and other
news print materials and enquired them.
In the year 1988, Sixteen thousand (16,000) copies
of Namadhu MGR news paper used to be printed every day
by Jaya Publications for circulation. The said number
increased to Thirty thousand (30,000) per day in the year
1990. Then said number further increased to Sixty
thousand (60,000) in the year 1995-96. The said number
further increased to Seventy thousand (70,000) in the year
1996-97. On account of increase in the number of readers
year after year, the consumption of printing paper and
other suppliers of the said materials, the income tax
assessing officers accepted the claim of Jaya Publications.

In the year 1990, M/s Jaya Publications took 65.57
acres of agricultural land belonging to one TSR Vasudevan
Poyakkam and Maharajapuram in Villupuram District, on
lease basis. The agricultural operations were being carried
out by Jaya Publications in the name of Sapthagiri Farms.
The said Jaya Publications disclosed the receipt of
agricultural income, in the returns filed before the I.T.
Authorities. The I.T. Authorities enquired the said
Vasudevan and thereafter they passed assessment orders
accepting the claim made by the assessee. As he
remembered, two lease agreements had been executed by
Vasudevan in favour of Jaya Publications. In the
documents produced before the Court by the Income Tax
Department, he saw one certified copy of the certificate
dated 12.11.2001 issued by Deputy Inspector General of
Registration, Chennai confirming the sale of stamp papers
bearing numbers 4163 to 4166 and 4169 and 4170 dated
5.7.1988 in favour of Vasudevan as per Ex.D.235. The
said agricultural income has been shown in the profit and
loss account of Jaya Publications every year. The Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal also accepted the above claim made
by Jaya Publications regarding agricultural income.

While he was working with M/s Nataraj
Associatesand M/s Venkataram and Co., he had inspected
and audited the accounts including financial statements to
be presented before I.T. Authorities, of M/s Sasi
enterprises. The said M/s Sasi Enterprises is a partnership
firm. The said firm was reconstituted in the year 1990.
The partners of reconstituted firm are Tmt.Sasikala (A.2)
and Jayalalitha (A.1). The said firm was engaged in the
business of providing FAX services, STD services, Xerox
services, printing of Building plans, in the name of FAX
Universal, to its customers. The said Sasi Enterprises was
assessed to Income Tax by Income Tax, Central Circle-
II(2), Chennai. The Central Circle-II used to verify each
item of income as well as expenditure shown in the
statements attached to the returns of the assessee, before
passing the assessment order. The said assessment used
to be done as provided
u/S 143(3)
of Income Tax Act. The
said M/s Sasi Enterprises had entered out agricultural
operations in the year 1990. In the records produced by
the I.T. Authorities, he identifies Ex.D.258 found in Volume
-8, as attested copy of lease agreement dated 01.09.1991
entered into between M/s.Sasi Enterprises and the said
TSR Vasudevan.

In the same records i.e. Volume No.8, he identifies
Ex.D.259 as copy of certificate issued by the Tahsildar of
Villupuram to the effect that the lands mentioned therein
were held by A.2 Sasikala as lessee. In the same records
i.e. Volume No.8 he identifies Ex.D.260 as attested copy of
order dated 28.5.2002 passed in I.T. Appeal No.108/2001-
02 relating to the assessment year 1991-92 (accounting
year ending on 31.03.1991), by the Commissioner of
Income Tax Appeals-II. Ex. D 261 is the balance sheet
and the profit and Loss account statement of M/S Sasi
Enterprises for the year ending on 31.03.1991 as certified
by the auditors. The above order was passed by the
Income Tax Authorities on the basis of above Balance
Sheet Ex.D.261. In the said Balance sheet, a sum of
Rs.3,73,700/- is shown as agricultural income for the
above accounting year. The said agricultural income has
been accepted by the Income Tax Department as reflected
in the above order Ex.D.260.
In the above balance sheet Ex.D.261 a sum of
Rs.17,91,000/- is shown as loans and advances due to M/s
Sasi Enterprises. In the attachment to the said Balance
sheet, the names of the persons from whom the above
amount was due to M/s Sasi Enterprises as referred in
Ex.D.261, Rs.8,20,000/- was due from one Nagammal, a
sum of Rs.2,75,000/- was due from one Subramaniam.
In the records produced by I.T. Authorities
namelyvolume No.8, he identifies Ex.D.262 as attested
copy of the order dated:28.5.2002 passed by
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment
year 1992-93 (accounting year ending on 31.3.1992), in
I.T. Appeal NO.107/2001-02. EX.D.263 is copy of the
Balance sheet for the accounting year ending on
31.03.1992 of M/s.Sasi Enterprises as attested by the
auditors namely S. Venkataram and Co. During the said
accounting year M/s Sasi Enterprises had leased shops
bearing Nos.9 and 20 in Khadar Nawaz Khan Road,
Chennai in favour of M/s Info Tech Computer Centre. The
said Sasi Enterprises had received an amount of
Rs.54,000/- as advance. In the records produced by I.T.
Authorities, he identifies Ex.D.264 as attested copy of
letter dt:30.11.2001 addressed by Info Tech Computer
Centre to the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals,
Chennai confirming the payment of above amount
advanced to M/s Sasi Enterprises.
In volume No.8 of the records which are produced by
the I.T. Authorities, he identifies Ex.D265 as attested copy
of letter dt:26.12.2001 addressed by one A. Bhaskaran of
Kumbakonam to the Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) to the effect that a sum of Rs.40,000/- was paid
as advance to M/s Sasi Enterprises in respect of a property
at Maharkombu, Thanjavur taken on lease by the said
Bhaskaran. He said that the said property is a house
property. In the Balance Sheet cum profit and Loss
account for the accounting year ending on 31.03.1992 i.e.,
Ex.D.263 pertaining to M/s Sasi Enterprises a sum of
Rs.5,40,700/- is shown as agricultural income. The receipt
of said agricultural income by M/s Sasi Enterprises has
been accepted by the I.T. Authorities as reflected at
page.16 of the order Ex.D.262. In the balance sheet
Ex.D.263 under the head "Details of Loans and advances"
a sum of Rs.3,70,000/- is shown as balance amount due
by Mrs. Nagammal. In the previous year's balance sheet
namely Ex.D.261 pertaining to the year ending on
31.03.1991, under the head "Details of Loans and
Advances" a sum of Rs.8,20,000/- is shown as amount due
from Mrs. Nagammal. This would mean that during the
accounting year ending on 31.03.1992 M/s Sasi
Enterprises had received Rs.4,50,000/- towards repayment
of loan from Mrs. Nagammal and this aspect has been
accepted by I.T. Authorities in the order Ex.D.262. The
other aspects mentioned in the above balance sheet i.e.
Ex.D.261 have been accepted in the order Ex.D.62 passed
by the I.T. Authorities.
M/s Sasi Enterprises had filed I.T. returns along with
Balance Sheet, profit and loss account for the year ending
on 31.3.1993. Commissioner of Income Tax passed an
order dt:28.5.2002 in I.T. Appeal No.106/2001. Attested
copy of the said order is Ex.D.266 EX.D.267 is attested
copy of the Balance sheet along with profit and Loss
account of M/s Sasi Enterprises for the accounting year
ending on 31.3.1993. In this document, a sum of
Rs.2,16,850/- is shown as agricultural income under the
head "Liabilities". The receipt of the said agricultural
income was accepted by the Commissioner of Income Tax
Appeals, under the order Ex.D.266. Similarly, in Ex.D.267
under the head "Details and Loans for advances" the
previous balance of Rs.3,70,000/- was received from the
said Nagammal during the financial year ending on
31.3.1993. This aspect has been accepted after discussion
in the order Ex.D.266. In the balance sheet for the year
ending on 31.3.1993 namely Ex.D.267, a sum of
Rs.1,48,600/- is shown as rent received by the firm. The
said rental income had been accepted by the income tax
authorities under the order Ex.D.266 pertaining to
assessment year 1993-94. In case I.T. Authorities did not
allow the rent income shown in the Balance sheet, they
would have treated above amount of Rs.1,48,600/- as
income from unexplained source and assessed the same
under
Section 56
of the Income Tax Act. The said rental
income of Rs.1,48,6000/- has not been assessed under

Section 56
of Income Tax Act.

Ex.D.268 is attested copy of the
acknowledgmentgiven by I.T. Authorities for the receipt of
returns for the assessment year 1994-95 from M/S Sasi
Enterprises, along with statement of income and balance
sheet. Ex.D.269 is attested copy of the assessment order
dt:19.03.1999 passed by the assessing authority namely
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II(2)
in respect of M/s Sasi Enterprises for the assessment year
1994-95. In the said statement of income for the year
ending on 31.03.1994 (forming part of Ex.D.268) M/s Sasi
Enterprises have shown an amount of Rs.65,000/- as
agricultural income derived out of 3 acres 23 cents of land
in R.S.No.402/2 of Sundara Kottai Village in Mannargudi
taluk, Thanjavur District, and an amount of Rs.1,41,400/-
as rental income derived from shops and house property.
In the same document that total annual income is shown
as Rs.1,94,806/-. Under the same statement of income, a
sum of Rs,.10,20,000/- is shown as income from capital
gains, got by the sale of plant and Machinery tools, Dies
and Condemned Stores of erstwhile TANSI Enameled wire.
These aspects were accepted by the assessing authority
under the assessment order Ex.D.269 dt:19.03.1999.
Ex.D.270 is attested copy of the acknowledgement
issued by the Income Tax Department for the receipt of
returns along with statement of income, balance sheet and
profit and loss account for the year ending on 31.03.1995
(assessment year 1995-96) from M/S Sasi Enterprises on
20.09.1997. In the said statement of income a profit is
shown as Rs.44,895/-. A sum of Rs.1,69,600/- is shown
as income from house property. A sum of Rs.27,42,869/-
is shown as term loan received from Indian Bank. On the
basis of the above returns filed for the year ending on
31.03.1995, an assessment order came to be passed on
30.03.1999 as per Ex.D.271.

Ex.D.272 is attested copy of the acknowledgment
issued by the I.T. Authorities regarding receipt of returns
along with statement of income, balance sheet and profit
and loss statement, from M/s Sasi Enterprises for the
assessment year 1996-97 (accounting year ending on
31.03.1996). In the statement of income a sum of
RS.80,000/- is shown as agricultural income. Gross rental
income received is shown as Rs.7,06,200/-. In the same
statement of income, a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs is shown as
loan received by the assessee from Housing Real Estate
Developers Pvt. Ltd. Regarding this the said Housing Real
Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd have given confirmation by
furnishing statement of account as per Ex.D.273.
Ex.D.274 is letter of confirmation of accounts issued to
Sasi Enterprises by Housing Real Estate Developers Pvt.
Ltd for the period 01.04.1997 to 31.03.1998. In this
document, the amount due is shown as Rs.10 lakhs. In
the above statement of income a sum of 6 lakhs is shown
as the amount received by way of sale proceeds of building
materials pertaining to Industrial Estate Guindy. Ex.D.275
is attested copy of the order of assessment dt:30.03.1999
passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central-
II(2), Chennai in respect of M/s Sasi Enterprises for the
assessment year 1996-97. In the said balance sheet
pertaining to EX.D.272 under the head "unsecured loans" a
sum of Rs.2 lakhs is shown as received from Lex property
Developers Pvt. Ltd. In the assessment order if a
particular item shown in the statement of income is not
dealt with it would mean that the said item was accepted
by the assessing authority.

Mr.G. Narayan Swamy, Mr.G. Seetharaman,
Mr.R.Vaidyanathan and Mr.B.K.Murthy are the Senior
Auditors working in M/s. Venkataram and Co. Mr. G.
Natarajan is Senior Auditor in M/s Natarajan Associates.
Apart from assisting the above firms of Chartered
Accountants in the auditing of the firms of Chartered
Accountants in the auditing of the accounts of their clients,
he has independently done internal auditing work in
respect of M/s Sasi Enterprises, M/s Anjaneya Printers Pvt.
Ltd. and also A.2 Sasikala.

A.2 Sasikala and A.3 Sudagaran are directors in M/s
Anjaneya printers Pvt. Ltd. The said M/s Anjaneya Printers
Pvt. Ltd was incorporated on 14.07.1993. Printing
business is the main business of Anjaneya Printers. The
said M/s Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd owns 19 or 20 printing
machines. It has also taken printing machines belonging
to M/s Shastri Nuts, plates Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd and M/s
Jaya Publications, on lease. The printing machines which
are owned by M/s Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd have been
purchased from M/s Uni offset printers, M/s Amar
Enterprises, M/s Ideal packaging and M/s Tamil Arasi
Achagam. Ex.D.236, Ex.D.237 and Ex.D.238 are attested
copies of the invoices pertaining to the printing machines
purchased by M/s Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd from the said
suppliers. Ex.D.276 is attested copy of invoice pertaining
to printing machine purchased by M/s Anjaneya Printers
Pvt. Ltd from Tamil Arasi Achagam. The said M/s
Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd is an assessee of income tax
and the assessment is done by Central Circle-II(2), M/s
Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd in Chennai came to be searched
by the income Tax Department. After the said search M/s
Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd filed income tax returns. In
volume No.7 of the documents produced before court by
the Income Tax Department he identifies Ex.D.277 as
attested copy of acknowledgement issued by Income Tax
Department for the receipt of returns along with Income
Tax Adjustment Statement, Balance Sheet, Trading profit
and Loss Account from M/s. Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd on
29.08.1997 for the period 14.07.1993 to 24.09.1996. The
date 14.07.1993 is the date of incorporation of M/s
Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd and 24.09.1996 is the date on
which the raid was conducted by Income Tax Department.
The assessment was done for block period of 10 years
preceding the date of search. In the same volume No.7,
he identifies Ex.D278 as attested copy of assessment order
dt:06.03.1998 passed by Assistant Commissioner of
Income Tax, Central Circle-II(2) Chennai, for the above
block period. The assessing authority did not accept the
accounts submitted by the said M/s Anjaneya Printers Pvt.
Ltd. Acting under
Sec.142(2A)
of Income Tax Act the
assessing authority with permission of Commissioner of
Income Tax appointed by name M/s Subba Rao and Co.,
Chartered Accountants, Chennai as special auditors for
auditing the entire accounts pertaining to M/s Anjaneya
Printers Pvt. Ltd for the above period. The above
assessment order Ex.D.278 is based on the audit report
submitted by the said M/s Subba Rao and Co. The
assessing authority did not accept the amount shown as
receipts by way of share applications from M/s Jaya
Publications, inflation in purchase of printing raw materials.
But the other items were accepted. The assessee namely
M/s Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd preferred appeal against the
said assessment order before Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal. In volume No.7 of the records produced by the
Income Tax Department he identifies 76 Ex.D.279 as
attested copy of the order dt.27.12.2004 passed by the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (A-Bench) in
I.T.(S.S.)A.No.87 (Mds) 1998. The appellate authority
under this order accepted the items which had been
disallowed by the assessing authority. Ex.D.280 is
attested copy of the letter dt:04.01.2000 addressed to
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II(2),
Chennai by the auditors M/s Venkataraman and Co., giving
details of the machineries leased to M/s Anjaneya Printers
Pvt.Ltd. by M/s Shastri Nuts plates Manufacturers Pvt.
Ltd., In the order Ex.D.279, the Appellate Authority has
upheld the claim of the assessee regarding payment of hire
charges by the assessee to M/s Jaya Publications. In the
trading profit and loss account forming part of Ex.D.277
the following breakup figures are shown under the head
"Net Profit".
Rs.89,646.00 for accounting year 1993-94
Rs.30,30,284/- for the accounting year 1994-95
Rs.22,30,285/- for the accounting year 1995-96
Rs.04,31,069/- for the period 01.04.1996 to
30.09.1996

In the same statement M/s Anjaneya Printers Pvt.
Ltd show that Rs.43,18,810/-, Rs.31,64,964/- and
Rs.35,50,218/- as the amounts due by way of over draft to
the Banks for the financial years ending on 31.03.1995,
31.03.1996 and the period 01.04.1996 to 30.09.1996.
They have also shown Rs.52,47,200/-, Rs.50,98,749/- and
Rs.56,51,868/- as the amounts due by them way of term
loans to the Banks for the years ending on 31.03.1995,
31.03.1996 and the period 01.04.1996 to 30.09.1996
respectively. In the same statement M/s Anjaneya Printers
Pvt. Ltd have declared that they have taken unsecured
loans from V.N.Sudhakaran (A-3) director of M/s ANjaneya
Printers Pvt. Ltd and that they are due Rs.09,87,260/-,
Rs.09,88,000/- and Rs.09,88,000/- for the years ending
on 31.03.1995, 31.03.1996 and the period 01.04.1996 to
30.09.1996 respectively to the said creditor namely
V.N.Sudhakaran (A-3).
Accused No.2 Sasikala was carrying on the business
of Video Coverage and giving of Video equipments on hire,
in the name and style of Vinod Video Vision in Chennai. In
addition to this business, from the year 1993 A.2 started
business in Steel Fabrications in the name and style of
Metal King in Chennai. Further from the year 1995
onwards, she was carrying on Mushroom Business under
the name and style of Fresh Mushrooms. She held
separate Bank accounts in the names of her above
businesses. In the name of Metal King, Accused No.2 held
current account No.1245 with Canara Bank, Guindy branch
and current account No.2277 with Canara Bank, Mylapur
Branch. In the unmarked documents seized during
investigation and produced before Court by investigation
agency, he identifies Ex.D.281 as Computerized statement
of account pertaining to said current account No.1245 with
Canara Bank, Guindy Branch for the period 02.01.1995 to
12.08.1996.
The business which was being carried on in the name
and style of Metal King was registered under the
Sales Tax
Act
and was assessed to sales tax. In the unmarked
documents produced by investigation agency, he identifies
Ex.D.282 as the extract of the Assessment Register of
Dealers paying Sales Tax during the year 1994-95.
According to this document, the total turnover reported by
Metal King during the said year was 1,42,92,912-43 paise.
The taxable turnover was Rs.33.92,853.54 paise. During
the internal audit of the accounts of Metal King for the year
1994-95 to 1996-97 he had examined the accounts of the
said assessee. In the unmarked documents produced by
the investigation agency he identifies Ex.D.283 as Pay-In-
Slips Counterfoil book pertaining to Metal King's current
account No.1245 with Canara Bank, Guindy Branch during
the period 27.04.1995 to 22.12.1995. He also identifies
Ex.D.284 as Pay-in Slips counterfoil book pertaining to
Metal king's current account No.1245 with Canara Bank,
Guindy branch during the period 10.02.1996 to
03.041996. Amongst the said unmarked documents he
identifies Ex.D.285 as the Chitta Book pertaining to the
Bank transactions of Metal King, with Canara Bank, Guindy
Branch during the period 03.04.1996 to 12.06.1996, and
Ex.D.286 as the Chitta Book pertaining to Metal King
regarding the receipts from the customers during the
period 10.02.1996 to 31.07.1996. In this book, there is an
entry that for the period from 01.04.1996 to 31.04.1996 a
sum of Rs.6,67,609/- had been received by Metal King
from its customers in the form of Cash, Cheques and DDs.
In the same book the entries would show that during the
period from 10.02.1996 to 29.02.1996 a sum of
Rs.4,48,487-70 paise had been received by Metal King
from its customers in the form of Cash, Cheques and DDs.
The same book further reveals that during the month of
March 1996 Rs.2,73,615/- had been received by Metal
King from its customer in the form of Cash, Cheque and
DDs.
Accused No.2 Sasikala is an Income Tax Assessee.
From the year 1991-92, the accounts of A-2 are being
examined by Income Tax Central Circle-II(2), Chennai.
The assessing authority would examine each entry
pertaining to receipt or payment shown in the statements
of profit and loss account by the assessee, before passing
the order of assessment. Accused No.2 had filed her I.T.
Returns for the assessment year 1991-92. Ex.D.287 is the
acknowledgment given by I.T. Authorities for the receipt of
I.T. Returns from the said Assessee along with statement
of income and other enclosures which are appended to the
said acknowledgment. According to the statement of
income filed by the assessee the cash on hand as on
31.03.1991 was Rs.4,35,622-60 paise. In the assessment
order passed, the assessing authority did not accept the
amount which was shown as opening balance as on
01.04.1990. The assessee had preferred an appeal before
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (Bench-A).
The Tribunal accepted the amount which was shown as
cash on hand on 01.04.1990 in the statement of income
filed by the assessee and passed an order as per Ex.D.288
dt:07.12.2004 in I.T-Appeal No.435/Mds/1997.
During the year ending on 31.03.1992 (assessment
year 1992-963) the Assessee had received Rs.51,47,955/-
through foreign remittances. This was declared in the
return of the income filed by the Assessee. Ex.D.289 is
copy of the assessment order dt:27.03.2001 passed by the
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-II (2),
Chennai for the assessment year 1992-93. Under this
order, the assessing authority accepted Rs.4,41,615/-
shown in the return of income of the assessee as taxable
income. Ex.D.289(A) is copy of the acknowledgment
issued by income Tax Department regarding receipt of the
above returns along with total income statement and
computation statement.
In the return of income filed for the assessment year
1993-94, the assessee had declared her income from
Vinod Video Vision business during the year ending on
31.03.1993, as Rs.15 lakhs. The assessing authority did
not accept this income, while passing the assessment
order. The assessee preferred an appeal before the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (Bench-B) in I.T.
Appeal No.1594/Mds/1997. Ex.D.290 is copy of the order
dt:14.09.2004 passed by the appellate authority. Under
this order, the appellate authority accepted Rs.10 lakhs as
the total annual income of the assessee from the said
Vinod Video Vision business.
The said assessee had filed her I.T. Returns for
theassessment year 1994-95. With regard to the order
passed by the assessing authority, the revisional authority
namely Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, Chennai
Suo-motu called for the records and passed an order
dt:14.03.2002 as per Ex.D.291 revising the order passed
by the assessing authority and issued a direction for fresh
assessment being made by the assessing authority.
Against the order passed by the revisional authority the
assessee preferred an appeal before the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, B-Bench, Chennai. The appellate
Tribunal passed an order dt:18.10.2007 as per Ex.D.292
setting aside the order passed by the revisional authority,
and giving a direction to the Assessing Authority to pass
fresh order in the light of the observations made in the
order of appellate authority.
Thereafter the assessing authority passed fresh
order dt:03.01.2008 for the assessment year 1994-95 as
per Ex.D.293. Under this order, the Assessing Authority
accepted Rs.24,99,005/- as revised total income of the
Assessee (including Agricultural income) for the
assessment year 1994-95 and directed for payment of
Rs.9,79,826/- as the balance income tax payable by the
assessee.
The assessee had not filed her I.T. Returns for the
assessment year 1995-96. In the year 1997 the
Government of India introduced voluntary disclosures of
income scheme. After the introduction of this scheme the
assessee filed her I.T. Returns for the assessment year
1995-96 on 23.12.1997, under the above scheme. In the
said returns the Assessee made voluntarily disclosures of
her income for the assessment year 1995-96 as
58,06,667/- and paid the tax. (Since the copy of voluntary
declaration of income which is produced by accused does
not bear the seal of the I.T. Authorities, the same is not
permitted to be marked as exhibit.)
Ex.D.294 is copy of the intimation given by Income
Tax Department under
Section 143(1)
of Income Tax Act
to the assessee namely Accused No.2 for the assessment
year 1996-97, together with the attachments. Since
income tax had been paid as per the declaration made
under voluntary disclosure of income scheme, no further
amount was payable towards income tax for the said year
by the Assessee.
Ex.D.295 is consolidated loan statement pertaining to
accused No.2 to accused No.4 and M/s Jay Real Estates,
M/s J.S. Housing Development, M/s J. Farm House, M/s
Sasi Enterprises, M/s J.Jay T.V., M/s Anjaneya Printer Pvt.
Ltd. Kodanadu Tea Estate and M/s Jaya Publications,
issued by Indian Bank, Abhirampuram Branch, showing the
loans advanced and amounts due by the respective
borrower as on 30.04.1996. Apart from this, Accused No.2
had borrowed amounts in her personal name and also in
the name of Metal King of which she is proprietrix, from
private lenders namely Housing Real Estate and
Development Pvt. Ltd. Ex.D.296 is the statement of
account issued by Housing Real Estate and Development
Pvt. Ltd to the effect that Rs.15 lakhs had been advanced
to Accused No.2 on 10.01.1996. Ex.D.297 is another
statement of account issued by Housing Real Estate and
Development Pvt. Ltd to the effect that Rs.30 Lakhs and
Rs.15 lakhs respectively had been advanced to M/s Metal
King on 06.01.1996 and 05.03.1996 respectively.
EX.D.298 and Ex.D.299 are the confirmation letters
dt:01.04.1998 issued by Housing Real Estate and
Development Pvt. Ltd to the effect that as per their books
of account for the period 01.04.1997 to 31.03.1998 Rs.45
lakhs and Rs.15 lakhs were due by M/s Metal King and
Accused No.2 Sasikala respectively.
Amongst the unmarked documents produced by the
investigation agency, he identifies Ex.D.300 as copy of the
sale agreement dt:12.02.1995 executed by Accused No.2
Sasikala in favour of M/s Bharani Beach Resorts Pvt. Ltd in
respect of house property i.e., Residential Apartment
bearing Flat No.7, 1st floor, Ananthy Street, Santhome,
Mylapur, Madras. He prepared the original sale
agreement. Under the said agreement, the sale price fixed
for the above property was Rs.32 lakhs. Out of that A-2
received Rs.22 lakhs as advance under the said
agreement.
Amongst the unmarked documents produced by the
investigation agency he identifies Ex.D.301 as copy of the
sale agreement dt:18.02.1995 executed by A.2 Sasikala in
favour of M/s River Way Agro Pvt. Ltd in respect of lands.
He prepared the original sale agreement. Under the said
agreement, the sale price fixed for the above property was
Rs.80 lakhs.
Amongst the unmarked documents produced by
theInvestigation agency he identifies Ex.D.302 as copy of
the sale agreement dt:08.04.1995 executed by A.2
Sasikala in favour of M/s Meadow Agro Farm Pvt. Ltd in
respect of lands. He prepared the original sale agreement.
Under the said agreement the sale price fixed for the
above property was Rs.80 lakhs. Out of that A.2 received
Rs.50 lakhs as advance under the said agreement.
Kodanadu Tea Estate is a partnership firm. Accused
No.2 Sasikala, Accused No.3 Sudagaran and Accused No.4-
Ilvavarasi were its partner during the years 1995-96 and
1996-97. The said firm owns tea estate called Kodanadu
Tea Estate. Initially one Greig Jones and others were the
partners in the said firm. Later on Tmt. Radha
Venkatachalam and others became the partners of the said
firm. Subsequently, A.2 to A4 became the partners. In
the year 1995 A.2 to A.4, acquired shares in Kodanadu Tea
Estate for a consideration of Rs.7.60 Crores. Out of that
RS.3.75 Crores was obtained as loan by A.2 to A4 in the
name of Kodanadu Tea Estate Firm from Indian Bank,
Abhirampuram Branch, Chennai in the year 1995. Accused
No.3 Sudagaran and Accused No.4 Ilavarasi gave Rs.25
lakhs each for the acquisition of share in the said estate.
A.2 Sasikala paid Rs.3.35 Crores through cheque. The
Firms in which A.2 was a partner, obtained loan to the
tune of Rs.2.3 crores from M/s Barani Beach Resorts Pvt.
Ltd. Out of the said loan amount Rs.2.3 Crores, Accused
No.2 drew Rs.2.2 Crores. For the remaining Rs.1.15
Crores, A.2 Sasikala received Rs.55 lakhs as advance from
M/s River Way Agro Pvt. Ltd and Rs.40 lakhs from M/s
Namadhu MGR news paper and M/s Jaya Publications. The
remaining amount was paid by A.2 from her individual
fund available in her Bank account.
With regard to the advancing of loan Rs.2.3 Crores
by M/s Barani Beach Resorts Pvt. Ltd to the above firms in
which accused No.2 was partner, the Income Tax
Department made enquiry and issued notices to M/s Barani
Beach Resorts Pvt. Ltd to explain the source of money for
the said advancements. In volume No.6 of the records
which are produced before the Court by Income Tax
Department he identifies Ex.D.303 as copy of the order
dt:18.06.2010 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
(bench-A) Chennai in I.T. Appeal No.1285/Mds/2008
preferred by M/s Barani Beach Resorts Pvt. Ltd. The
explanation given by Bharani Beach Resorts Pvt. Ltd
regarding source of money advanced to the above firms in
which A.2 was partner, was accepted by the I.T.
Authorities, under the said order. Said M/s Bharani Beach
Resorts Pvt. Ltd availed loan to the tune of Rs.3 Crores
from Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram Branch on the security
of NRNR (Non Resident Non Repartiable) deposit of
Tmt.Susheela Ramaswamy. The income Tax department
had issued notice to the said Tmt. Susheela Ramaswamy,
in the enquiry held with regard to the said NRNR deposit of
Rs.3 crores. Each of accused 3 and 4 had taken loans to
the tune of Rs.22 lakhs from M/s Bharani Beach Resorts
Pvt. Ltd for making payments of the said amounts of Rs.25
lakhs each. In the income Tax records produced before
Court, he identifies Ex.D.304 as copy of the order
dt:02.04.2009 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
(Bench-C) Chennai in the I.T. Appeal No.1616/Mds/2007
preferred by said Tmt. Susheela Ramaswamy. The
appellate authority held that NRNR Deposit of said Tmt.
Susheela Ramaswamy was not taxable in India.
Ex.D.375 is copy of I.T. Returns submitted by A.2
Sasikala for the Assessment year 1995-96 on 23.12.1997,
together with acknowledgement issued by the
Commissioner of Income Tax. He has verified the
accounts of M/s J. Farm House and M/s Green Farm House.
EX.D.376 is the confirmation letter dt:6.7.2013 issued by
Housing and Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd to the effect
that they had advanced loan of Rs.25 lakhs in favour of
M/s J. Farm House through Cheque drawn on Tamil Nadu
Mercantile Bank, Annal Salai Branch, Chennai during the
year 1995-96. Ex.D.377 is letter dt:06.07.2013 issued by
Housing and Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd to the effect
that they had advanced loan of Rs.25 lakhs in favour of
M/s Green Farm Housing through cheque drawn Tamil
Nadu Mercantile Bank, Annal Salai Branch, Chennai during
the financial year 1995-96. The said M/s J. Farm House
and M/s Green farm house have declared about the said
loans obtained by them from Housing and Real Estate
Developers Pvt. Ltd in their IT returns. The assessment
proceedings in respect of the years 1995-96 and 1996-97
have not attained finality. Still they are pending. M/s S.
Venkataram and Co., are the auditors for
Mahasubbalakshmi Kalyana Mantapam. The said M/s
Mahasubbalakshmi Kalyana Mantapam is partnership firm
initially constituted by Selvaraj, Armugham, Dandapani
and three others. There was reconstitution of the said
partnership on 01.04.1993 as per deed dt:01.04.1993.
A.2 Sudagaran A4 Ilavarasi and Sridala Devi were inducted
as new partners of said firm. The said C. Armugham
B.Selviraj, K.Dandapani, one Devendranath Arora and
Ashok Kumar Arora retired from said partnership under a
separate deed dt:28.07.1993. Ex.D.378 is attested copy
of the deed of partnership dt:01.04.1993 and Ex.D.379 is
attested copy of deed of retirement dt:28.7.1993. The
retiring partners were paid in all Rs.10 lakhs by A.3
Sudhagaran. The value of the Benz car owned by M/s Jaya
Publications has been declared as Rs.6,76,000/- in the
balance sheet for the assessment year 1993-94.
During the cross-examination, it is elicited that he
has completed B.Com, in the year 1981 and he did articles
under Chartered Accountant by name Mr.
T.S.Venkatasubban at Kumbakonam. He was associated
with M/s V.Venkataraman and Co., since the year 1992-
93. He was with M/s S. Venkataraman and Co., from the
year 1992 to 1998. After leaving S.Venkataram and Co.,
he joined M/s G.Nataraj Associates as partner in the year
1998. He was with M/s. G. Nataraj Associates till the year
2004. He does not have any document to show that he
was associated with M/s G.Nataraj Associates from the
year 1992-1998. M/s S.Venkataram and Co., orally asked
him to give evidence in this case on their behalf. He does
not have any letter or authorization issued by M/s
S.Venkataram and Co., in his favour. Mr.Venkataram,
Mr.G.Narayanaswamy, Mr.G.Seetharaman,
Mr.R.Vidyanathan, Mr.Sri.B.K.Murthy, Mr.S.Sudharaman,
Mr.B.Gorthaman and two others are partners in M/s
S.Venkataram and Co. of them the said G.Narayanaswamy
has authorized him to give evidence in this case on behalf
of said firm. He was not a partner in M/s S.Venkataram
and Co., and M/s G.Nataraj Associates but he has not
brought those documents, except a letter issued by M/s
G.Nataraj Associates. The said letter is dated 01.06.2013.
On 18.06.2013 when he was examined before this Court
he had not brought the said letter dated 10.06.2013.
He has handled the accounts of M/s Jaya Publications
and M/s Sasi enterprises from the Assessment year 1992-
93. He had done internal audit work for these firms. No
letter of appointment was issued either by M/s Jaya
Publications or by M/s Sasi Enterprises appointing him as
their internal auditor. M/s G.Nataraj Associates were
appointed as auditors after the year 1996 by M/s Jaya
publications and M/s Sasi Enterprises. A.2 Sasikala had
appointed him as her auditor for handling her personal
accounts in the year 1992. In respect of tax cases only,
M/s S. Venkataram and Co., had been appointed as their
representatives by M/s Jaya Publications and M/s Sasi
Enterprises. There need not be an order of appointment
regarding appointment of appointment regarding
appointment of auditors for auditing accounts of firm. In
the year 1996 Accused No.2 Sasikala appointed M/s
G.Nataraj and Associates as her auditor.
He has seen the deed of partnership pertaining to
M/s Jaya Publications. The said firm has been registered
under partnership Act. He could not furnish the registration
number of the said firm but it was registered in the year
1990. A.1 and A.2 became partners of M/s Jaya Publication
in the year 1990 i.e., on 04.05.1990. A.2 was looking
after the affairs of the said firm in between 1990-1992 and
she was interacting with him. A.1 executed the power of
attorney dated 27.05.1992 in favour of A.2 for looking
after the business of M/s Jaya Publications, on her behalf.
The main business of M/s Jaya Publications was Job
printing and also the Publication of Namadhu MGR news
paper. M/s Namadhu MGR news paper has been
registered with Press Trust of India. He does not
remember the registration number of Namadhu MGR news
paper. M./s Jaya Publications is not Banking Company. It
does not do non Banking Business. As there was no
necessity M/s Jaya Publications did not obtain scheme in
respect of Namadhu MGR news paper. The said scheme
has not been registered with any authority, there is no
such requirement. He has gone through the terms and
conditions of that scheme. According to condition No.2 of
the said scheme a depositor would receive a free copy of
Namadhu MGR news paper but not any interest on the
deposited amount. The number of free copies to be given
to a depositor, was decided by the partner of M/s Jaya
Publications, in order to increase the subscriber's base.
Question: I suggest to you that special auditors
came to be appointed for auditing the accounts of M/s Jaya
Publications for the reason than internal auditor had not
done the work properly. What do you say?
Ans: Special Auditors will be appointed depending on
the volume and nature of business, by the Assessing
Authority with the permission of Commissioner of Income
Tax.

In the order Ex.D.217 there is no mention that
representatives of M/s Jaya Publications produced the
books of accounts before the special auditors. There is an
observation in the said order that during the said special
audit to show receipts through cash and Bank no
supporting document were made available. He said that
on account of seizure of the documents of M/s Jaya
Publications by DV & AC those documents could not be
made available before the special auditors. But in the
order Ex.D.217, there is no mention that the said
documents could not be made available for the reason that
they were seized by DV & AC. There is an observation
made in the para.2 of Annexure-II to Ex.D.217 that all
payments made through cash are not supported by any
outside document or evidence and that they are only
supported by internally made vouchers with payee's
signature. Three is also further observation para.3 of said
Annexure-II that payments above Rs.500/- are not
stamped as required under
Indian Stamp Act
. In Annexure
No.VI to Ex.D.217 there is an observation that there are
no records to show the production/yield form the land.
Hence the auditors are unable to comment on the yield
and production.
The returns as per Ex.D.218 to Ex.D.220 were all
filed on 06.11.1998, whereas the returns as per Ex.D.221
and Ex.D.222 were filed 17.03.1998 and 17.03.1999
respectively. The returns as per Ex.D.218 to Ex.D.222
were all prepared by him. He has not signed any of those
returns, as they have to be signed and verified only by the
Assessee. The return as per Ex.D.223 for the Assessment
Year 1996-97 was filed on 17.03.1999. The balance sheet
as per Ex.D.224, Ex.D.225 and Ex.D.226 for the years
ending on 31.03.1994, return. Ex.D.224 to Ex.D226 does
not bear the Date, Seal and Signature of the Income Tax
Department. Ex.D.228 does not bear the seal and
signature of M/s Jaya Publications. It does not indicate the
date on which the said list was prepared. The said list is
not addressed to any person. The original subscription
applications contained in Ex.D.230(1) to Ex.D.230(18)
volumes, were not produced before Income Tax Authority
but their Xerox copies were produced. The originals had
not been produced for the reason that they were taken
away by DV & AC. They had produced the receipt
counterfoils relating to the said subscription deposits,
before the I.T. Authorities.
In Para 7.2 of the order Ex.D.231 with regard to the
above applications the following observations is made.
" As regards non production of the application forms
the learned counsel submitted that the application
forms, counterfoils etc., kept in a cardboard box in
Tata Sumo vehicle parked in a hotel was found
missing and a complaint was lodged with the police
in this connection. He further submitted that since
the original applications were lost he produced photo
stat copies of the same before the Assessing Officer.
The learned counsel further contended that the
Assessing Officer thoroughly investigated the scheme
deposit while finalizing the assessment for the
Assessment years 1994-95, 1996-97 and 1997-98
and accepted the scheme though certain
disallowances were made for the reasons stated
therein."
Question: Are M/s Jaya Publications and M/s
Namadhu MGR news paper different entities?
Ans: Namadhu MGR is a news paper published and
circulated by M/s Jaya Publications.
Question: At page 21 of the order Ex.D.223 with
reference to the deposits mentioned in the said page, the
explanation by way of reply given by M/s Jaya Publications
to the Assessing Officer has been extracted as under:-
"The previous authorized representative had
explained that these are all transfer from current
account of M/s Namadhu MGR as the Assessee has
been dealing with M/s Jaya Publications and M/s
Namadhu MGR as two separate divisions. Scheme
deposits are collected by M/s Namadhu MGR.
Perhaps so the Assessee's clerk is not well verse with
in accountancy, was not knowing the account to
which they are to be credited whether Namadhu
MGR or M/s Jaya Publication, he might have posted
to UPL Account".
In view of the above reply given by the Assessee
how do you say that Namadhu MGR news paper was
only published and circulated by M/s Jaya
Publications?
Ans: According to him M/s Jaya Publications had
income from the sale of Namadhu MGR news paper,
income from agricultural operations and rental
income from properties owned by them. Thereby
the income was dealt under 3 divisions.

UPL account means un-posted Ledger Account. He
has seen the original lease agreement between Mr.
T.S.R.Vasudevan and M/s Jaya Publications in respect of
the lease of agricultural lands. A copy of that lease
agreement had been produced I.T. Authorities. The
original is still with M/s Jaya publications. There is an
observation that learned counsel representing the
Assessee informed the Assessing Officer vide his letter
dt:23.03.2001 that the original lease agreement kept in a
cardboard box in Tata Sumo vehicle parked in a hotel was
found missing and a complaint was lodged with the police
in that connection. He could not say as to how many of
the 9,000 subscription deposit subscribers of Namadhu
MGR news paper's subscription deposit scheme, had
subscribed Rs.18,000/-. If he can verify the records and
count, then he would be in a position to tell the time. He
has seen all the said 9,000 applications of the subscribers
of the said scheme. He has not put his initials on the said
applications to indicate that he has not put his initials on
the said applications to indicate that he verified each of
those applications. He denies the suggestion that out of
the said 9,000 applications more than 5,000 applications
were complete. In the application bearing Sl.No.104 and
reference No.207 stated to be that of one S.Mada Swamy,
shown to him the place and signature are not visible. He
said that this so on account of passage of time. He denies
the suggestion that neither the mention of place nor the
signature is there in the said application. In the
application of one J. Padmanabhan at Sl.No.109 there is
mention of date and signature of the applicant but the
Column meant for mentioning the place is left blank.
M/s Jaya Publications had not submitted its income
tax returns in time. Assessing officer had issued notice on
14.06.1995 requiring M/s Jaya Publications to submit their
I.T Returns for the assessment year 1991-92. On account
of non filing of returns, the Assessing Officer finalized the
assessment proceedings for the Assessment year 1991-92.
As could be seen from Para.3 of the order Ex.D.231, the
assessing officer finalized the original assessment
proceedings
u/S 144
of Income Tax Act on 03.03.1998 on
the basis of materials available on record. The
Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) set aside the said
assessment order on 15.09.1998. Thereafter M/s Jaya
Publication filed its return of income on 06.11.1998. The
Registrar of News papers for India would issue a certificate
regarding the circulation of news papers. According to him
the said certificate would be issued on the basis of the
disclosures made by the publisher of concerned news
paper. When Assessing Officer issued notice requiring M/s
Jaya Publication is produced the original applications along
with the counterfoils of deposit receipts and the concerned
register, but they filed only copies and those copies were
accepted by the Assessing Officer.
M/s Jaya publications had not filed return of income
for the assessment Year 1992-93, within the time. On
14.06.1995 assessing officer had issued notice to M/s Jaya
Publications to file the return. On account of M/s Jaya
Publications not filing return of income despite of above
notice, the assessing officer finalized the original
assessment proceedings under
Section 144
of I.T. Act on
06.03.1998 on the basis of the materials available on
record. The Assessee preferred appeal against the said
order dt:06.03.1998 and the appeal came to be allowed on
15.09.1998 and thereafter the Assessee submitted the
return on 06.11.1998. In this case also copies of
documents were produced before the Assessing Officer by
the Assessee.
He had worked for G.Narayanaswamy Chartered
Accountant. There is separate Bank account in the name
of M/s Namadhu MGR news paper. There was no change
in the nature of business carried on by M/s Jaya
Publications after the re-constitution of firm.
Agricultural operations were being carried on by M/s
Jaya Publications in the name of Sapthagiri Farm. The said
Sapthagiri Farm is not an individual entity. Separate
accounts have been maintained in respect of Sapthagiri
Farm. He denies the suggestion that there was no lease
agreement between Mr. T.S.R.Vasudevan and M/s Jaya
Publications. M/s. Nataraj Associates had been appointed
as auditors for M/s Sasi Enterprises in the year 1996. M/s
S. Venkataram and Co., were attending the tax matters
pertaining to M/s Sasi Enterprises he has seen the deed of
partnership pertaining to Sasi Enterprises. The said firm is
a registered partnership firm. It was registered in the year
1990 but he does not remember the registration number.
A-1 Jayalalitha and A.2 Sasikala were the partners of M/s
Sasi Enterprises. Providing Copying Services, Fax
Services, STD Services, etc., to the customers is the
business of the said firm. There was no change in the
business of the said firm except that during the financial
year 1994-95 the said firm carried on additional business
in export of Sea Foods for only one year. There was lease
deed executed between TSR Vasudevan and Sasi
Enterprises regarding agricultural operations. He has gone
through that lease deed. The lease was for the period
from 1990 upto 31.03.1993. He has not seen the revenue
records pertaining to the Survey Numbers referred in the
schedule to Ex.D.258.
M/s Sasi Enterprises had not filed return income for
the year 1991-92 within time and notice was issued by the
assessing Officer under
Section 148
of Income Tax Act on
15.02.1994 requiring M/s Sasi Enterprises to file the
returns. On account of return of income being not filed in
spite of the above notice, the assessing officer finalized the
original assessment under
Section 144
of I.T. Act on
09.02.1996 on the basis of materials available in the
record. The Assessee namely M/.s Sasi Enterprises had
not submitted document showing agricultural Income
pertaining to the Assessment year 1991-92. There is an
observation that enquiries with Revenue Authority,
Villupuram revealed that there was no record of tenancy in
respect of the lease hold land and that Village Assistant of
Poyapakkam had deposed that the alleged lease hold lands
were not leased to anybody else but were cultivated by
T.S.R.Vasudevan and his family. But the finding recorded
in para 6.6 of the said order is that appellant namely M/s
Sasi Enterprises was cultivating Groundnut in 3 acres of
land and Vegetables and water melon as main crops in
27.34 acres land. He has seen the original lease
agreement dt:01.09.1991 between T.S..R Vasudevan and
M/s Sasi Enterprises. But original lease agreement was
not with him. The I.T. Authorities have attested Ex.D.258
as certified true copy.
In the balance sheet Ex.D.261 pertaining to M/s Sasi
Enterprises, under the head "Liabilities" a sum of
Rs.6,85,000/- is shown against the name of A.2 Sasikala
and Rs.4,50,000/- is shown against the name of A.1
Jayalalitha. No separate schedule is attached to the
balance sheet in respect of the above two entries, since
the transactions are few. He has not physically verified
the Fixed Assets mentioned in the Ex.D.61. He has only
verified the invoices and documents. Before this court the
partners of M/s Sasi Enterprises have not produced
documents relating to Fixed Assets. In the said balance
sheet Ex.D.261 a sum of Rs.70,91,000/- is shown against
the head "Loans and Advances". The confirmation letters
regarding loans and advances were produced before the
I.T. Authorities but not before this court. No interest was
charged on the above amount of Rs.70,91,000/-. The said
loans and advances were repaid to the Assessee
subsequently.
The order Ex.D.262 pertains to the Assessment year
1992-93. M/s Sasi Enterprises had not filed return of
income for the said year in time. The Assessing officer
issued notice under
Section 148
of I.T. Act on 15.02.1994
calling upon the Assessee to file the return and on account
of non compliance with that notice, the Assessing Officer
passed the order on 09.02.1996 under
Sec. 144
of I.T. Act
against the said Assessment Order Assessee filed an
Appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax who by
order dt:10.02.1996 set aside the assessment order. Shop
No.20, Khader Nawaz Kahn road was purchased by the
said Assesee in January 1992. There was lease deed
executed in respect of this property between M/s Sasi
Enterprises and Infotech Computer Center. He does not
remember the date of execution of said lease deed. The
lease was for a period of 11 months. Copy of that lease
deed had been produced before the I.T. Authorities. The
said document is not produced before this court.
There is no reference to the execution of lease deed
between InfoTech Computer Centre and M/s Sasi
Enterprises in respect of said shop No.20, Khader Nawaz
Khan Road, Chennai in Ex.D.264 which is letter
dt:30.11.2001 addressed by InfoTech Computer Center to
the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He denies the
suggestion that the said letter dt:30.11.2001 is a
concocted document. The letter Ex.D.265 dt:26.12.2001
does not mention clearly whether the advance of
Rs.40,000/- was paid by Mr. A.Baskar to M/s Sasi
Enterprises in cash or otherwise. The letter also does not
make a reference to any lease deed. But in para 5.0 of the
order Ex.D.262 there is a mention that the said amount of
Rs.40,000/- was credited to Current Ac.No.2061 of M/s
Sasi Enterprises with Canara bank,. Mylapur Branch.
In Ex.D.263 which is the balance sheet for the year
ending on 31.3.1992 of M/s Sasi Enterprises the amount of
Rs.5,40,700/- received by way of Agricultural Income is
shown under the head "Liability", for the reason that the
firm is liable to pay the said income to the partners. As
observed in the Ex.D.266 M/s Sasi Enterprises had not
filed return of income for the Assessment Year 1993-94
within the statutory time allowed under
Section 139
of I.T.
Act. The return came to be filed after remand of the case
by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) U/o
dt:10.02.1999. In Ex.D.267 which is balance sheet of M/s
Sasi Enterprises for the year ending on 31.03.1993 a sum
of Rs.2,16,850/- shown to have been received by way of
Agricultural Income by the said firm, has been shown
under the "Liability" head for the reason that the firm had
to pay the amount to the partners. He does not know as
to whether the profit and loss account seen in Ex.D.267
was prepared by M/s G.Nataraj Associates. The amount of
Rs.8,20,000/- which has been advanced to Nagammal by
M/s Sasi Enterprise. Hence there is no specific mention to
the repayment of said advance amount in Ex.D. 267,
under the head of "Loans and Advances". In Ex.D.268
which is the certified true copy of the acknowledgement
issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle-II, Chennai for the assessment year 1994-95
the nature of business carried on by the Assessee M/s Sasi
Enterprises is mentioned as ", Job Typing, Fax, Copier
Services". In the balance sheet for the year ending on
31.3.1994 of M/s Sasi Enterprises forming part of
Ex.D.268, a sum of Rs.10 lakhs is shown as the loans
received from Namadhu MGR news paper and another
amount of Rs.4 lakhs is show as loan received from Vinod
Video Vision. For these loans no interest was paid by M/s
Sasi Enterprises. To his knowledge, for the above loans
taken by M/s Sasi Enterprises no interest was paid.

M/s Sasi Enterprises had not filed return of income
for the Assessment year 1994-95 within time. The
Assessing Officer issued notice under
Section 148
of I.T.
Act requiring M/s Sasi Enterprises to file the returns.
Return of income for the Assessment year 1994-95 was
filed by M/s Sasi Enterprises on 01.09.1997. He denies
the suggestion that along with the return of income M/s
Sasi Enterprises had not filed trial balance sheet. After
seeing Ex.D.269 he said that a letter dt:03.09.1997 had
been issued by the Assessing Officer requiring the
Assessee to rectify the defects namely production of trial
balance and balance sheet.
In column No.14 of the acknowledgment format
(Ex.D.270) the nature of business carried on by M/s Sasi
Enterprises is mentioned as Xerox, Job Typing, Fax,
Copier, Services, Trade Service and Mercantile Export.
Agriculture is not shown as one of the business carried on
by M/s Sasi Enterprises, in the said column No.14 of the
acknowledgment format. In the receipt and payment
account for the year ending on 31.03.195 and forming part
of Ex.D.270 it is mentioned that an amount of
Rs.23,80,000/- was received by way of advance for sale of
property, by the Assessee namely M/s Sasi Enterprises.
The said advance was received in respect of Neelakarai
property by M/s Sasi Enterprises. In the receipt and
payment account referred above a sum of Rs.27,42,869/-
is shown as term loan received from Indian Bank during
the year ending on 31.03.1995. This loan was obtained for
business purpose. In respect of Neelankarai property M/s
Sasi Enterprises had entered into agreement of sale. In
the said receipt and payment account of sum of
Rs.23,37,266.35 paise is shown as payment made towards
Neelankarai Construction. In the same document a sum of
Rs.10 lakhs is shown as amount returned by M/s Sasi
Enterprises to M/s Anjaneya printers Pvt.Ltd. No interest
was paid by M/s Sasi Enterprises in respect of the said
advance amount of Rs.10 lakhs. In the above document a
sum of Rs.2 lakhs is shown as advance given by M/s Sasi
Enterprises to M/s J.J. Leasing and Maintenance. For this
amount advanced no interest payment was stipulated. AS
on 31.03.1996 the above advanced amount of Rs.2 lakhs
had not been returned to M/s Sasi Enterprises by M/s
J.J.Leasing and Maintenance.
M/s Sasi Enterprises had not filed return of income
for the Assessment year 1995-96 within time and thereby
a notice was issued by the Assessing Officer on 07.06.1996
under Section 148 of I.T.Act. The return was not
submitted even after the said notice and the
representative of the Assessee sought for extension of
time before the Assessing Officer for filing the said return.
The said return of income was submitted on 26.09.1997.
In Ex.D.272 which is acknowledgment for the filing of the
return of income for the Assessment year 1996-97 by M/s
Sasi Enterprises, in column No.14 the nature of business
carried on by M/s Sasi Enterprises is mentioned as Xerox,
Job Typing, Fax, Copier Services, Trade Service and
Mercantile Export. In the receipts and payments account
for the year ending on 31.03.1996 a sum of
Rs.34,42,000/- is shown as loans received by M/s Sasi
Enterprises from the persons mentioned therein. No
interest was paid by M/s Sasi Enterprises for the above
loan of Rs.34,42,000/- without verifying the relevant
records, he could not say whether the said loan amount of
Rs.34,42,000/- was repaid by M/s Sasi Enterprises. In the
same receipts and payments account a sum of Rs.5 lakhs
is shown as advance received from the sale of property.
That advance is in respect of the sale of Neelankari
property. Without verifying the records he could not say
what the sale consideration fixed regarding sale of
Nelaknkarai property. He had seen the sale agreement
but he has forgotten the amount of sale consideration
mentioned therein. In the above document a sum of
Rs.25,52,732.37 paisa is shown as payment made in
respect of Neelankarai Construction upto 31.03.1996. In
the balance sheet for the period ending on 31.03.1996 a
sum of Rs.39,87,576/- is shown as repayment of term loan
taken from Indian Bank by M/s Sasi Enterprises. In the
said balance sheet under the head "Fixed Asset" the
amount spent on the construction in Neelankarai Property
is shown as Rs.25,52,732.37 paisa.
In Ex.D.273 the date on which the said statement of
account issued is not mentioned. Ex.D.274 is the letter
issued by Housing and Real estate Development Pvt.Ltd.
confirming that a sum of Rs.10 lakhs was due to them as
on 31.03.1998 by M/s Sasi Enterprises. The said letter is
issued on 01.04.1998. The cheque number is not
mentioned either in Ex.D.273 or in Ex.D.274.
The return of income was not submitted by M/s Sasi
Enterprises for the Assessment year 1996-97 within time.
After the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 142
of the I.T.Act on 07.02.1997, the said M/s Sasi Enterprises
filed the return of income for Assessment year 1996-97 on
26.09.1997 but by typographical mistake the said date is
typed as 26.06.1997 in the Assessment Order Ex.D.275.
He was not appointed as auditor for M/s Anjaneya
Printers Pvt.Ltd. The invoice Ex.D.278 is not signed or
initialed by the representative of M/s Anjaneya Printers
Pvt.Ltd for having received the machine described in the
said document. There is no reference to the purchase
order if any issued by M/s Anjaneya Printers Pvt.Ltd. in the
invoice Ex.D.276. Said M/s Anjaneya Printers Pvt.Ltd was
incorporated under the
Companies Act
on 14.07.1993. A.2
Sasikala and A.3 Sudagaran were the directors of M/s
Anjaneya Printers Pvt.Ltd. M/s Anjaneya Printers Pvt.Ltd
became Assessee of Income Tax only after raid was
conducted by Income Tax Department on 24.09.1996. M/s
G.Nataraj Associates were the statutory auditors for M/s
Anjaneya Printers Pvt.Ltd. They were appointed as
statutory auditors in the month of September 1996. He
was not a partner in M/s Nataraj Associates in the year
1996. There was no change in the memorandum of
association of M/s Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd. He has
physically verified the machines in M/S Anjaneya Printers
Pvt.Ltd in the year 1995. In the year 1994 M/s Anjaneya
Printers Pvt.Ltd took certain machines of M/s Shastri Nuts
plates Manufacturers Pvt.Ltd on lease basis. In all 15
machines had been taken on lease basis by M/s Anjaneya
Printers Pvt.Ltd from M/S Shastry Nuts plates
Manufacturers Pvt.Ltd between 1994 and September 1996.
He does not remember the lease amount. M/s Anjaneya
printers Pvt.Ltd took 3 machines of M/s Jaya Publications
on lease basis. The lease period was between 1994 and
1996. He does not remember the lease amount.
The originals of Ex.D.236 to Ex.D.238 have been
produced by M/s Anjaneya Printers Pvt.Ltd before the
I.T.Authorities. He denies the suggestion that the said
documents were not produced by M/s Anjaneya Printers
Pvt.Ltd. before I.T. Authorities. There was no written
order issued by M/s Anjaneya Printers Pvt.Ltd appointing
him for doing internal audit work. A.2 Sasikala orally
asked him to do the internal audit work in respect of M/s
Anjaneya Printers Pvt.Ltd. The consolidated balance sheet
for the years ending on 31.03.1994, 31.03.1995 and
31.03.1996 is found attached to the acknowledgment
Ex.D.277. The date on which the said consolidated
balance sheet was prepared and the date on which it was
produced before the I.T.Authorities, is not mentioned in
the said balance sheet. The said statement was prepared
by M/s G.Nataraj Associates Chartered Accountants. He
denies the suggestion that special auditor was appointed
by the Income Tax Department for auditing the accounts
of M/s Anjaneya Printers Pvt.Ltd for the reason that the
Assessee had not properly maintained the accounts during
the block period 01.04.1986 to 24.09.1996. Special
auditor came to be appointed after the raid conducted by
the Income Tax Department on 24.09.1996.
M/s Metal King is a proprietary concern of A.2
Sasikala. The said concern is registered as a dealer under
the
Sales Tax Act
. A.2 Sasikala who is proprietrix of M/s
Metal King is I.T.Assessee. The said M/s Metal King
business was started in November 1993 by A.2.
The business under the name M/s Fresh Mushrooms
was started by A.2 Sasikala during the financial year 1994-
95, in Ex.D.285 the name of M/s Metal King is not
mentioned but the Bank account number written therein is
that of M/s Metal King. The abstract of Register D.2 i.e.
Assessment Register of Dealers paying Tax on actual
monthly turnover for the year 1994-95 is issued by
Commercial Tax Authority in respect of M/s Metal King.
A.2 Sasikala became Income Tax Assessee in the year
1987-88. Since then she has filed her return of income
before I.T.Authorities disclosing her income.
Mr.Rajashekaran (PW 228) was her auditor in the year
1987-88. The said Rajashekaran filed I.T.Returns of A.2
Sasikala from the year 1987-88 to 1993-94. He has not
filed return of income of A.2 Sasikala.

Under the Order Ex.D.288 dt:07.12.2004 the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld additional ground raised by
the Revenue to the effect that CIT (Appeals) erred in
holding that a reading of Sec.234-A and
Sec.234-B
of
Income Tax Act would make it clear that once a return is
processed under Section 143 (a)(a) and interest under
Section 234-A and 234-B is charged that would become
final.

M/s Vinod Video Vision was started by A.2 Sasikala
in the year 1987.88. A.2 Sasikala had not filed return of
income for the Assessment year 1992-93 within time. But
it was filed belatedly. According to para 27 of the order
Ex.D.291 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax(appeals)
Central Circle-II, during the Assessment year 1994-95 the
Assessee namely A.2 Sasikala had omitted to mention
about the acquisition of the properties referred in the order
and also to explain the sources for acquisition, although
those properties had been acquired and disposed of during
the relevant previous year.

In Ex.D.296 which is a statement of account issued
by Housing Real Estates and Development Pvt.Ltd to A.2
the cheque number is not mentioned. It also does not
bear the date on which the statement was prepared. The
amount shown in Ex.D.296 was taken as loan by A.2 from
Housing Real Estate and Development Pvt.Ltd Ex.D.297
which is the statement of account issued by Housing Real
Estates and Development Pvt.Ltd in favour of M/s Metal
King does not mention the date on which the statement
was prepared. The amount mentioned in Ex.D.297 was
taken as loan by A.2 as proprietrix of M/s Metal King. No
interest was paid by A.2 for the loans taken by her and
referred in Ex.D.296 and Ex.D.297. As far as he knows
the loans referred Ex.D.296 and Ex.D.297 were not repaid
by A.2. The cheque numbers mentioned in Ex.D.297 are
not mentioned in Ex.D.299.
Exs.D.300 to Ex.D.302 are not the originals. They
are copies of sale agreements. He has not signed the sale
agreements indicating that it is he prepared those sale
agreements. The originals are with the Assessee i.e., A.2-
Sasikala. Copies of the said sale agreements had been
produced before the I.T.Authorities during the year 2001
or 2002. Sale deeds were not executed in pursuance of
the above sale agreements, as the said property came to
be attached in connection with the present case.
According to clause NO.2 of Ex.D.300 to Ex.D.302 the sale
transaction had to be completed within a period of two
years from the date of respective agreements. He does not
know whether either of the parties to the above sale
agreements Ex.D.300 to Ex.D.302 instituted Civil Suits
seeking specific performance of the respective sale
agreements. The said sale agreements were not cancelled
by A.2 Sasikala. To his knowledge there was no extension
of time for the performance of the above agreements. The
amounts received as advance under the said sale
agreements were not refunded to the prospective
purchaser by the vendor.
Kodanadu Tea Estate is a partnership Firm. He does
not know as to when the said firm came into the existence.
He went through the deed of partnership at the time when
the said firm was taken over by A.2 Sasikala, A.3-
Sudagaran and A.4 Ilavarasi. As for as he knows A.3
Sudagaran and A.4 Ilavarasi obtained loan of Rs.22 Lakhs
each from M/s Barani Beach Resorts Pvt.Ltd during the
month of February or March 1995, in order to take over
the above firm Kodanadu Tea Estate. He does not know
whether the said loan was repaid by A.3 and 4. He does
not know whether any interest was paid to M/s Barani
Beach Resorts Pvt.Ltd by A3 and A4. He does not know
whether M/s Barani Beach Resorts Pvt.Ltd confirmed the
lending of the above amount in favour A3 and A4.

The advance of Rs.55 lakhs taken by A.2 Sasikala
from Riverway Agro.Pvt. Ltd has been confirmed by the
latter. A.2 Sasikala being herself a partner of M/s Jaya
Publications, she drew Rs.40 lakhs from Namadhu MGR
Account. The letter of confirmation from M/s River Way
Agro Products Pvt.Ltd is not produced before the Court.
But there is an acknowledgement of the receipt of Rs.55
lakhs by A.2 Sasikala from M/s River Way Agro Products
Pvt.Ltd in the sale agreement Ex.D.301. The voluntary
disclosures of income under
Section 65(1)
of Finance Act
1997 by A.2 Sasikala was done on 23.12.1997 as per
Ex.D.375. The said disclosure of Income was in respect of
the Assessment Years of 1995-96 and 1996-97.
The document which is marked as Ex.D.376 issued
by Housing and Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd does not
make mention of the Cheque number under which Rs.25
lakhs was advanced by them to M/s J. Farm Houses. The
document which is marked as Ex.D.377 issued by Housing
and Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd does not make
mention of the cheque number under which Rs.25 lakhs
was advanced by them to M/s Green Farm Housing.
Ex.D.376 and Ex.D.377 were obtained on 06.07.2013 after
the commencement of his examination in chief since the
records were with Income Tax Department. Income Tax
department can issue copies of those records pertaining to
the transaction referred in Ex.D.376 and Ex.D.377. He
denies the suggestion that the documents Ex.D.300 to
Ex.D.302, Ex.D.375 to Ex.D.379 are all concocted
documents. He further denies the suggestion that at no
point of time he audited the accounts of A.2 and that he
has deposed falsely before court in order to help the
accused. He denies the suggestion that none of the
persons referred in the applications, which are available in
the files marked as Ex.D.230(1) to Ex.D.230(18) made any
deposits with Namadhu MGR news paper and that the
amounts referred in the said documents actually belong to
accused. He further denies the suggestion that he was not
appointed as auditor by A.2 or any of her firms.
A.2 Sasikala A.3 Sudagaran and A4 Ilavarasi are
partners of M/s J.J.Leasing and Maintenance. The amounts
referred in Ex.D.376 and Ex.D.377 has been credited to
the respective Bank Accounts of M/s J.Farm Housing and
M/s Green Farm House, as could be seen from Ex.P.1207
and Ex.P.1189. The document which is marked as
Ex.D.260 at para.3.0 would show that he had represented
M/s Sasi Enterprises before the Commissioner of Income
Tax(Appeals) Central Circle-II.

DW.89- T. Ananthakrishna has deposed that he was
working as a Manager in M/s. Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd.
The said M/s. Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd. was carrying on
business of printing Government School books, posters,
brochures, AIADMK Party's posters, books etc.. The said
company was operating from No.48, Jawaharlal Nehru
Salai, Ekkattu Tangan, Chennai-32. The said premises
belonged to M/s. Shastri Nuts, Plates Manufacturers Pvt.
Ltd. Out of 37 machines were owned by M/s. Anjaneya
Printers Pvt. Ltd. 15 machines were taken on hire from
Shastri Nuts, Plates Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd and 3 machines
were taken on hire from M/s. Jaya Publications. Ex.D.239
is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated
6.10.1989 executed in favour of M/s. Shastri Nuts Plates
Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. by Tamil Nadu Small Industries
Development Corporation Ltd. in respect of Plot No.48 at
Guindy Industrial Estate, Mambalam, Guindy Taluk,
Madras District. The said Anjanyea Printers Pvt. Ltd. is
located in this property. The electrical installation in this
property stands in the name of M/s. Shastri Nuts, Plate
Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. Investigating Agency did not mark
the seized electricity card. The said M/s. Anjaneya Printers
Pvt. Ltd.owned 3 Swaraj Mazda Vehicles. The said
company has not spent any amount towards upholstery or
extra fittings for these Swaraj Mazda vehicles. The said
Swaraj Mazda vehicles were purchased by the M/s.
Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd. by making payment through
cheques. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were Directors of M/s.
Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd. There were 15 machines
belonging to M/s. Shastri Nuts Plates Manufacturers Pvt.
Ltd. in the said premises No.48. Of them two were
printing machines, three were cutting machines and three
were pinning machines. M/s. Anjaneya Printers Pvt.Ltd.
purchased the machines. The said M/s. Anjaneya Printers
Pvt. Ltd. purchased 3 machines from 3 companies names
M/s. Uni Offsets, M/s. Amar Enterprises and M/s. Ideal
packaging. There was hire agreement between M/s.
Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd and M/s. Shastri Nuts Plates
Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. with regard to the hiring of
machines. Ex.D.236, 237, and 238 are not computer
generated copies, they are typed manually. The company
seal is not there in the above documents.
DW.90 - E. Jayaraman was working as Manager for
Mahasubbulakshmi Kalyana Mandapam, Arumbakam,
Chennai since July 1993. The amounts so collected are
remitted to the Bank Account of said Kalyana Mandapam,
by him. The present rent for 24 hours, is Rs.40,000/-
excluding tax of Rs.4,994/-. Apart from the rent, they also
collect Rs.15,000/- per day towards maintenance from the
customers. If the expenditure towards maintenance
exceeds Rs.15,000/-, the extra amount will be collected
from the customer. In the year 1993, A3-Sudhakaran paid
Rs.10,00,000/- to the outgoing partners of above said
Kalyana Mandapam.
During the cross-examination, he states that he did
not remember the names of outgoing partners to whom
the accused No.3-Sudhakaran paid Rs.10 Lakhs during the
year 1993.

DW.91 - Dindugul Srinivasan has deposed that he is a
member of AIADMK Party since the year 1972. He was
chairman of Dindugul Panchayat Union from 1986 to 1991.
He was elected as Member of Parliament from Dindugul
Lok-Sabha constituency 4 times. He had contested the
said elections as AIADMK Party's candidate. From the year
1987,he was AIADMK Party's District Secretary for
Dindugul District for a period of 13 years. He worked as
Treasurer of said party from 2002 to 2007. A.1 Jayalalitha
has been General Secretary of AIADMK Party. In
appreciation of the achievements by AIADMK Party, they
used to give mementos made of Gold or Silver to accused
No.1. The said mementos were given by them to A.1 in
her capacity as General Secretary of AIADMK Party, as a
token of their love and affection.
With regard to the said mementos given to the
General Secretary of AIADMK Party, he had addressed a
letter to the Income Tax Department on 19.03.2003 in the
letter head of AIADMK Party. He attached list of mementos
which were given to the General Secretary, to the said
letter. Attested copy of the said letter dt.19.03.2003 is
Ex.D.250 and list of mementos referred above is
Ex.D250(A). The said letter and list have been attested as
true copy by the chartered accountant. In that letter, they
had clarified that the said mementos mentioned in the list
belong to AIADMK Party. From the point of view of
security, the said mementos had been kept at the official
residence of A.1 namely No.36, Poes Garden, Chennai. He
also gave his Sworn Statement in this regard before I.T.
Authorities explaining the above aspects. The said items
do not personally belong to accused No.1.
During the cross-examination he has deposed that
his education qualifications are M.A. and M.B.A., AIADMK
Party's General Secretary namely A.1 Jayalalitha appointed
him as party's District Secretary for Dindugal District in the
year 1987. In the year 2002,he was made party's
treasurer by accused No.1. Mr.Sedapathi Muttaiah was the
party's treasurer during year 1995-96. The said Sedapathi
Muttaiah is presently not in AIADMK Party. He is alive.
From the year 1981 accused No.1 has been AIADMK
Party's General Secretary. There are security personnel in
AIADMK Party and they are equipped with modern
equipments for security. The names of persons, who
contributed for the purchase of mementos referred in
Ex.D250(A), have been mentioned on the respective
mementos. Those names are not mentioned in
Ex.D250(A). In Ex.D250(A) neither the names of the
persons who presented mementos to party's General
Secretary nor the year in which those mementos were
presented, are mentioned. The head office of AIADMK
Party is at No.226/275 AVAI Shanmugam Sali, Royapettah,
Chennai-600 014. AIADMK Party is income tax Assessee.
The accounts of the party are being audited every year.
The receipt of mementos referred in Ex.D250(A) are
declared in the account submitted by the party to the
Income Tax Authorities. He does not remember as to in
which year's statement submitted to the income tax
authorities the receipt of mementos referred in Ex.D205(A)
is shown by the party. He does not remember whether the
said disclosures were made by the party to the Income Tax
Department prior to the year 2003.
No receipts showing purchase of mementos were
given along with the mementos by the persons who
presented those mementos to the party's General
Secretary. In AIADMK Party the registers are maintained
in respect of the said mementos and entries are made
therein. Thos registers have not been produced either
before court or before DV & AC during investigation. No
application was given by AIADMK Party prior to 19.03.2003
claiming that the mementos referred in Ex.D.250(A)
belong to the party. Even accused No.1 did not give any
letter to the I.T.Authorities to the effect that the
mementos referred in Ex.D250(A) belong to AIADMK Party.
He did not address any letter to accused No.1 stating that
the above mementos referred in Ex.D250(A) belong to
AIADMK Party and they may be returned to the party.
His Sworn Statement was recorded by the
I.T.Authorities during March 2003. He does not remember
the date on which my statement was recorded. He
voluntarily appeared before the I.T.Authorities and gave
that statement. Earlier to 19.03.2003 I.T.Authorities had
not summoned him to give confirmation letter. He denies
the suggestion that the items referred in Ex.D250(A)
personally belong to accused No.1. He denies the
suggestion that on account of accused No.1 being Chief
Minister of Tamil Nadu and also AIADMK Party's General
Secretary, he gave the letter as per Ex.D250 and also the
list as per Ex.D250(A) to the I.T.Authorities on her
direction. He further denies the suggestion that in order to
save accused No.1 he has falsely deposed before the court
that the above items mentioned in Ex.D250(A) belong to
AIADMK Party. He also denies the suggestion that that
Ex.D250 and Ex.D250(A) are concocted documents.

DW.92 - P Krishnan was working as Assistant Executive
Engineer in Tamil Nadu State PWD from 1971 to 1977.
During the months of March-April 1995, the said A.K.
Vijayashankar entrusted the construction of building at
premises No.1, Murphy Street, Akkarai. The said premise
belongs to M/s. J S Housing. The said work was entrusted
to him on labour contract basis subject to the condition
that the Sand, Bricks and Jelly are to be procured by him.
Upto September, 1996, the laying of RCC pillars and roof
slab for ground and 1st floor was done. The said building
was not completed in the month of September, 1996. He
was supervising the construction work at Akkarai. The
labour component in the total cost of the construction of
the building in premises No.1 Murphy Street, Akkari was
about 8 to 8.5 Lakhs. In respect of 1st and 2nd houses, he
had given an estimate of Rs.10 Lakhs towards labour cost.
In respect of 1st house, the construction was done by him
upto 70%, 2nd house to the extent of 40% and in respect
of 3rd house, he executed the work up to the level of laying
roof slab for ground floor.

DW.93 - Porselvan was working as Assistant Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Alathur (Operations and
Maintenance) during 2008. He speaks about supply of
electricity for domestic use. He further speaks about
application given by one Tmt. S Manimegalai w/o Gangai
Amaran seeking service connection to her residential
property in S F No.392/2B in Payyanoor village. Upon
receipt of application for electrical connection, they hold
inspection of the property and prepare an estimate. The
Electrical Contractor who is engaged would do the Wiring
work and thereafter they hold inspection and evaluate the
work.

DW.94 - A. Mohan was working as Superintendent
Engineer, PWD, Chennai. He speaks about Ex.D.305 file
bearing No. BE.4(2)/1871/1996 pertaining to the
constitution of team of experts for evaluating the buildings,
by the Chief Engineer, PWD, Chennai.

DW.95-M.Appandarajan has deposed that he was aCivil
Engineering Graduate. Hehas rendered 34 years of service
in Public Works Department in Tamil Nadu. Out of said 34
years, for a period of 22 years he was involved in the
supervision of execution of civil works and preparation of
estimates. He retired as Chief Engineer, design, research
and construction support for Water Resource Organization
(WRO).
He has examined 8 reports pertaining to the
valuation of the buildings concerned in the present case.
The owners of the properties referred in his report had
requested him, during June 2013, to verify the correctness
of the valuation reports pertaining to the above properties,
and to furnish his opinion in the form of report. He has
furnished his report/opinion as per Ex.D306. The said
report consists of pages 1 to 45.
For proper evaluation of property the plan of the
building, cross section of the building, plinth area of the
building, detailed estimate and rate are necessary. Data
Book is maintained in respect of standard items. The
items which are not covered in the Data Book are called as
"non schedule items". Earlier to the year 2000 there used
to be difference of rate of standard items in moffussil areas
and city areas. After the year 2000 the rates of standard
items are uniform for all the areas.
He has adopted plinth area rates for the evaluation
of the buildings, in his report. In the standard rate Data
Book prescribed by the State Government, the plinth area
rates vary from year to year. He has produced the Plinth
Area Rate Books applicable to Chennai and Chengalpattu,
MGR District in Tamil Nadu for the year 1993-94, 1994-95
and 1995-96. He has also produced standard Data Book
published by Government of Tamil Nadu in the year 1987.
The said book is Ex.D307, Ex.D308, Ex.D309 and Ex.D310
are the standard schedule rates for Madras city for the
years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 respectively.
Ex.D311, Ex.D312 and Ex.D313 are the standard schedule
rates for Chengalpattu, MGR District for the years 1992-
93, 1993-94 and 1995-96 respectively. He also gathered
information from the office of Superintending Engineer,
PWD, regarding issue rate of cement and steel for the
years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 under the
Right to
Information Act
, as per Ex.D314, Ex.D315 and Ex.D316
respectively.
For determining the value of Granites he obtained a
certificate regarding the rate of Granites from Century
Granite, Chennai as per Ex.D317. He also obtained
Standard Schedule Rate Book for the year 2012-13, as per
Ex.D318. The rate of Granite during the year 1993-94 was
more than the rate of Granite in the year of 2012-13.
In the year 1993-94, the rate of Granite was
Rs.143/- per Sq.ft. In the year 1994-95, the rate of
Granite was between Rs.143/- and Rs.155/- per Sq.ft.
During the year 1995-96, the rate of Granite was Rs.155/-
to Rs.175/- per Sq.ft. According to him the valuation of
property, done by the experts team in the present case is
more than the valuation done by him on the basis of plinth
area rate. For the valuation of Export Quality Marble he
has adopted the rate for Rs.80/- per sq.ft., according to
the invoices shown to him by the owners. Adanga Marble
is inferior to the Export Quality Marble. The value of
Adanga Marble was Rs.23/- per sq.ft. as per the invoices
shown to him by the owners. In his report Ex.D306 hehas
annexed the rate of Marbles and also the methodology of
determining the value of the construction. He has given
the comparative table in respect of each item of property.

For the year 1993-94 the Government had fixed the
Plinth Area Rate of construction as per the document
Ex.D380. For the year 1994-95 the Government had fixed
the plinth area rate of construction as per Ex.D381. For
the year 1995-96 the Government had fixed the plinth
area rate of construction as per Ex.D382. He obtained
these documents under the
Right to Information Act
.
During the cross-examination, he has deposed that
all Engineers who are qualified are entitled to make
valuation of property but in connection with a criminal case
it is only the Executive Engineer who is competent to make
the said valuation. There is a circular issued in this regard.
He does not remember the year in which the said circular
was issued. It is true that every year the Government
would determine Schedule Rates and Plinth Area Rates.
Standard Data Book would be revised once in 10 or 15
years. After the year 1987 the Government did not revise
Standard Data Book for Tamil Nadu. The Schedule items
are covered under the Standard Data Book. But Plinth
Area Rates are not covered under Standard Data Book.
After his retirement,he has not registered himself as
a Valuer. He was not appointed by a court for making
valuation and submitting report. Even Income Tax
Department did not appoint him for making valuation and
submitting report. During the 1st week of June 2013 the
owners orally requested him to verify the valuation report
submitted in this case and furnish his opinion. Thereafter
he started his work and obtained certain documents from
Government. He has not maintained any register of his
customers. After retirement the present assignment was
the 1st accepted by him.
He visited the buildings concerned in this case. He
does not remember the date on which he inspected the
property. The inspection was done on one day. He did not
verify the title deeds pertaining to the properties, but the
owners' representatives were present during his visit. He
prepared the report Ex.D306 on 2.7.2013 but the date is
not mentioned in that document.
The person who had issued Ex.D308 to Ex.D313 has
not put his signature or official seal to authenticate those
documents. The Public Information Officer issued Ex.D314
to Ex.D316 on his application dt.19.06.2013 and sent
those documents to him under covering letter. He has
produced that covering letter as per Ex.D383. The defence
counsel had obtained the copies of documents which are
marked as Ex.D314 to Ex.D316, earlier under
Right to
Information Act
. He used those documents for doing his
job and later he also applied for the copies of same
documents under the
Right to Information Act
and the
information officer issued documents Ex.D314 to Ex.D316
under his attestation on 06.05.2013. The proprietor of
Century Granites who had issued EX.D317 has not
attached a certificate or other document to show that he is
registered trader of all types of Marbles and Granites. He
gave his opinion on the request made by the owners of the
property. He denies the suggestion that the valuation
done by the expert team appointed in the present case is
correct and proper. He also denies the suggestion that he
has deposed falsely before the Court with a view to help
the accused. He further denies the suggestion that he is
not competent to issue a report as per Ex.D306. He also
denies the suggestion that the documents which produced
by him before court are all concocted documents.

DW.96-K.M.Samy @ Madasamy has deposed that in order
to show his identity he has brought his passport bearing
No.G-1953349 before the Court. In the year 1995-96,He
was doing the business of importing Marbles, Cutting
Polishing and Trading in the name and style of New
Diamond Granite Exports along with two other persons in
partnership. He has brought copy of the deed of
partnership dt.04.04.1996 as per Ex.D319. During the
year 1995-96,their firm had supplied Marbles to Accused
No.1 Jayalalitha. The said supply was effected against
Cheque payment. They were transported from Mumbai to
Hyderabad by road through a Lorry.
In the year 1999, the I.T.Authorities had enquired
him. They came to his factory for enquiry. They also
served him with summons. Copy thereof is available in
Volume No.3 of the income tax records produced before
the Court by the Department. He identifies the said
summons as Ex.D320. When the I.T.Authorities enquired
him in his factory with regard to the Marbles supplied by
him to A.1, he gave a letter dt.20.03.1999, addressed to
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. In
Ex.D210, he identifies Ex.D210(a) as copy of the said
letter dt.20.03.1999 addressed by him to the Deputy
Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. In the said
letter,he has given the details of the bills under which the
Marbles were supplied to A.1, the value of the Marbles
supplied under each bill and also the number of pieces and
the measurements thereof. The I.T.Authorities checked
his firm's books of account namely Invoices, Chalans,
Debtor's Ledger, Sales Register and Stock Register. In
Ex.D210 he identifies Ex.D210(b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g),
as copies of Invoices pertaining to the Marbles supplied by
their firm to A.1 Jayalalitha. He also identifies Ex.D210(h),
(i), (j), (k), (l) and (m) as the corresponding delivery
chalans and Ex.D210(n), (o) and (p) as the corresponding
Lorry receipts pertaining to the supply of Marbles to
accused No.1. He also identifies Ex.D210(q) as statement
of account pertaining to the above supply of Marbles done
during the year 1995-96 to accused No.1. He identifies his
signature appearing therein. In the same income tax
record he identifies Ex.D210(r) as copy of the quotation
given by him. With regard to supplies made by their firm
to other purchasers, he was enquired by the
I.T.Authorities. He produced Invoices pertaining to the
supplies made to other purchasers also. He identifies
Ex.D210(s), (t) and (u) as copies of invoices pertaining to
the supply of Marbles made by their firm to D.D.Shah,
M.N.Gandhi and Laxman Luthani. In Volume No.3 of
income tax records produced before court he identifies
Ex.D321 to Ex.D324 as copies of the invoices pertaining to
supply of Marbles made by their firm to Deepti Jewellers,
Swaraz Holding Pvt. Ltd., Venkatachalam and Indian
Marble Traders made during the year 1996. There is
negligible difference with regard to rate of Marbles
supplied to A.1 and the Marbles supplied by their firm to
the above mentioned purchasers. The I.T.Authorities
recorded his Sworn Statement.
In Mumbai there is another Marble supplier namely
M/s.Simplex Enterprises. He was not sure whether the
said Simplex Enterprises is presently doing business in
Marbles. M/s.Elegant Marbles in Mumbai are Retail
Traders in Marbles. Their firm referred above imports
Marbles from foreign countries and carried on the work of
cutting, polishing etc., as per requirements in their factory.
Sometimes they do local purchase also. In their firm's
dealings no cash transactions are involved.
During the cross-examination, he has deposed that
his partnership namely M/s. New Diamond Granite Exports
was registered in the year 1993 at Mumbai. He does not
remember the registration number of the said firm. One
Architect along with a Trader visited his place at Mumbai in
connection with supply of Marbles to A.1. The said
Architect and the Trader who accompanied him selected
the items at his business place. No written purchase order
was placed by them with him for supply of Marbles. The
said persons who selected the Marble Slab signed on the
Marble Slab itself. They did not give him a list of items
which were to be supplied. In the summons Ex.D230
issued to him by the Income Tax Department, he was
required to furnish the rate per sq.ft. for various imported
Marble Slabs quality wise prevailing during the financial
year 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97. He furnished them
the rates of different varieties of Marbles prevailing during
the 1999 as per Ex.D210(r). He had no difficulty for
providing the rates for the year 1994-95, 1995-96 and
1996-97.
In respect of the Marbles supplied by him to A.1 -
Jayalalitha the payment was made through Cheque. He
has given the particulars of the said Cheque in the
accounts furnished to the Income Tax Department. He has
not brought copy of the said account statement before this
court. He has also not brought his Bank passbook
containing entry regarding realization of those Cheques.
There is no difficulty for him to produce the said account
statement before this court.
He had visited M/s. Simplex Enterprises and M/s
Elegant Marbles Mumbai. He had supplied Marbles to the
said M/s.Elegant Marbles. Hewas not sure whether he had
also supplied Marbles to M/s.Simplex Enterprises. He has
got the document to show that he had supplied Marbles to
M/s.Elegant Marbles. Ex.D319 does not bear the seal and
signature of the Registrar of Firms. He denies the
suggestion that he was not a partner of M/s.New Diamond
Granite Exports, Mumbai. He further denies the suggestion
that he has deposed falsely with a view to help the
accused. He denies the suggestion that at no point of time
accused purchased Marbles from him. He also denies the
suggestion that he gave false statement before the
I.T.Authorities. The rate of Marbles at Mumbai and at
Chennai are not the same. During transportation of
Marbles from Mumbai to Chennai there is risk of breakage
apart from multi point taxation. Normally the purchaser
will bear the transportation charges. He denies the
suggestion that Ex.D319 is a concocted document.

DW.97- A. Vijaya Kumar was working as Assistant
Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-II (2),
Chennai. He speaks about the sworn statements of Mr.
Palani Chami, Mr.Gandhi Rajan, Mr. Prince Thangavel, Mr.
Sundara Pandiyan, Mr.Gopiraj, Mr. Dhanamurthy, Mr. D.
Mohan, Mr. Mohd. Ibrahim, Mr. Madurai Kannu, N Selvam,
Thotta Tharani. The above documents were considered by
the assessing officers while passing the assessment order.
In the proceedings before the High Court, there is no stay
order granted.

DW.98- A Shivakumar was working as Manager-Programs
and Business Promotions in J. Jay TV Company in 1994.
His job was designing the television programs of J. Jay TV,
fixing advertisement Tariffs and attending Bank
Transactions.A2-Sasikala, A3-Sudhakaran and V. Baskaran
were the partners of the said J. Jay TV Company. A sum of
Rs.38,21,000/- was pad as onetime payment for the user
of the above portion of No.31-A, Poes Garden. Ex.D.295 is
the Bank Statement pertaining to J. Jay TV and others,
and as per this document, the outstanding balance as on
30.04.1996 in the account of J. Jay TV was
Rs.1,06,76,010/-
During the cross-examination, it is elicited that A2
and A3 are the Directors and V.Bhaskaran is the Managing
Director of the said company. An amount of
Rs.38,2.1,000/- was paid to accused No.1 by J. Jay TV,
part of the said amount was paid in cash and part of the
said amount was paid through cheque.

DW.99 - G Sambandam is the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, DV & AC, Chennai. He speaks about the acceptance
of the final report as per Ex.D.372 by the Prl. Sessions and
Special Judge, Chennai.

8. The finding of the trial Court reads as

under:

In the trial Court, the prosecution has examined
P.Ws.1 to 259. Exs.P.1 to P.2341 were marked. MOs.1 to
1606 were marked. The defence has examined DWs.1 to
98. Exs.D.1 to D.384 were marked. The Court has
marked three documents, i.e. Exs.C.1 to C.3. The third
party has marked Exs.X.1 to X.25.
The trial Court at paragraph-9 of the judgment has
observed that criminal law was set into motion against A-1
by PW.232- Dr.Subramanian Swamy, the then President of
Janata Dal. He lodged a complaint before the Court of
Principal Sessions Judge, Madras, on 14.06.1996 under

Section 200
of Cr.P.C. It is alleged that A-1 after assuming
the Office of the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu acquired
properties and earned income disproportionate to her
known source of income. Wealth declared during 1989-90
was nil. It increased to Rs.1.89 crore in 1990-91; to Rs.
2.60 crore in 1991-92; to Rs.5.82 crore in 1992-93; to
Rs.91.33 crore in 1993-94, Rs.38.21 crore during 1994-95.
A-1 was receiving only one rupee per month towards her
salary as Chief Minister. The complaint was registered as
Crl.M.P.No.3238/1996. The learned Special Judge recorded
the sworn statement of the complainant vide order dated
21.06.1996. He directed investigation under
Section 17
of
the Prevention of Corruption Act and under
Section 202
of
Cr.P.C. PW-240- Tmt.Letika Saran, Senior Police Officer,
Madras, investigated the matter and collected necessary
materials in a fair and impartial manner and submitted
report to the Court within a period of two months.

When the inquiry was in progress, A-1 and A-2
challenged the order of the Principal Sessions Judge,
Madras, before the High Court of Madras in Crl.P.
No.5755/1996. Vide order dated 14.08.1996, the
investigation was stayed. Subsequently, vide order dated
4.9.1996, the High Court of Madras directed the Director of
Vigilance and Anti Corruption (for short "DV & AC"),
Madras, to take steps to investigate into the allegations
made in the complaint in accordance with law by any
person of his choice. That on 7.9.1996, the Director of
Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai, (PW.241 -
V.C.Perumal) directed PW.259- Sri.Nallamma Naidu,
Additional Superintendent of Police, DVAC, to investigate
the case. PW.241- V.C.Perumal registered FIR against A-1
on 18.9.1996 as per Ex.P.2266 in Crime No.13/AC/96/HQ
under
Section 13 (2)
read with
Section 13 (1)(e)
of
Prevention of Corruption Act.

PW.259 took up further investigation, secured search
warrant, conducted search of residential premises of A-1
situated at Nos.36 and 31-A and other locations, seized
voluminous documents and material objects, recorded the
statements of large number of witnesses. The
incriminating evidence collected during the investigation
reveals the complicity of A-2 to A-4 for the alleged
offences. PW.259 made an application to the Special Judge
on 22.01.1997 as per Ex.P.2316 for adding A-2 to A-4 as
co-accused in the crime. PW.259 laid charge sheet against
all the accused on 4.6.1997 which came to be registered
as Spl.C.C.No.7/1997 on the file of IX Additional Sessions
Judge, Chennai.

Paragraph-12 of the impugned judgment relates to
the charges. It is mentioned that A-1 being a public
servant along with A-2 to A-4 were parties to a criminal
conspiracy with the object of acquiring and possessing
pecuniary resources of income to the extent of
Rs.66,65,20,395/- in the name of A-1 and in the names of
you A-2 to A-4 and in the names of A-2 to A-4 and in the
names of 32 business enterprises floated in the names of
A-2 to A-4. That A-2 to A-4 abetted A-1 by holding a
substantial portion of pecuniary resources and properties
in their names. Thereby, A-1 to A-4 committed offences
punishable under
Section 120B
of the Indian Penal Code
read with
Section 13(2)
read with
Section 13(1)(e)
of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

A-1 acquired and possessed in her name and in the
names of A-2 to A-4 pecuniary resources and properties
disproportionate to her known sources of income to the
extent of Rs.66,65,20,395/-. Thereby A1 committed
offences punishable under
Section 13(2)
read with
Section
13(1)(e)
of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A-2 to A-4
in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, during the said
period, abetted A-1 who was a public servant by
intentionally aiding her in the possession of pecuniary
resources and properties disproportionate to her known
sources of income, for which he could not satisfactorily
account, by holding a substantial portion of the said
pecuniary resources and properties in their names and in
the names of the business enterprises floated in their
names and thereby A-2 to A-4 committed offences
punishable under
Section 109
of the Indian Penal Code
read with
Section 13(2)
read with
Section 13(1)(e)
of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused denied
the charges and claimed to be tried.

313 statement of the accused were recorded.
Vide judgment dated 18.11.2003 in Transfer Petition
(Criminal) Nos.77-78/2003, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India transferred the case to the State of Karnataka. The
Government of Karnataka established a Special Court at
Bangalore to try the cases against A-1 to A-4.
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.

Vide order dated 22.1.2010, Spl. Leave Petition
Nos.3829-3830/2005 were disposed of as withdrawn. In
terms of this order, Spl.C.C.No.209/2004 was de-linked.
Spl.C.C.No.208/2004 was continued.

While examining A-2 under
Section 313
of Cr.P.C.,
A-2 sought for copies of unmarked and unexhibited
documents filed under
Sections 207
and
243(2)
of Cr.P.C
in I.A.No.711. This application was rejected. Against
rejection of I.A.No.711, Crl.P.No.1840/2012 was preferred
before this Court and the same came to be dismissed.
Aggrieved by the same, Crl.A.No.1497/2012 was preferred
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Apex Court
permitted for inspection of unmarked and exhibited
documents referred in I.A.711/2012. A-3 and A-4 were
also granted permission to inspect the documents. A-3, A-
4 were examined under
Section 313
of the Cr.P.C. and
written statement was filed by A-3. A-4 has not filed any
written statement.
Accused moved an application under
Section 91
of
Cr.P.C. seeking to summon the documents and records
listed in the application from the Income Tax Department
and Registrar of Companies.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India disposed of Writ
Petition (Crl.) No.166/2013 vide order dated 30.9.2013
holding that the order of removal of Sri Bhavani Singh is a
product of malafides and the impugned order is not
sustainable in the eye of law and quashed the same.

The trial Court at paragraph 33.2 has observed that
W.P.No.14644/1997 preferred by A-1 before the High
Court of Madras came to be dismissed with an observation
that "a perusal of sanction proceedings themselves would
show that the Governor of Tamil Nadu had independently
applied her mind to every aspect of the material and had
granted sanction." Further, the Hon'ble High Court has
held in the said order that, "the impugned sanction
proceedings to prosecute A-1 cannot be challenged in view
of the Constitutional immunity provided under
Article 361

of the Constitution, besides holding that, Her Excellency,
the Governor of Tamil Nadu is the competent authority to
sanction the prosecution and the proceedings are in no
way vitiated or suffer with any illegality." The trial Court
held that sanction for prosecution of A-1 is valid.

A-1 approached this Court under
Section 482
of
Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated
against her in Crl.P.No.79/2010. Crl.P.No.79/2010 along
with Misc.(Crl).731/2010 was dismissed vide order dated
10.3.2010. Aggrieved by the same, A-1 preferred SLP
No.2248/2010 which was dismissed. In view of the above
order, the objection regarding the alleged illegality in
taking the cognizance deserves to be dismissed as barred
by the principle of estoppels.

In the written statement filed by A-1, A-1 has taken
up a plea that the statements of about 300 witnesses were
recorded during the course of enquiry under
Section 202
of
Cr.P.C. The statements of 300 witnesses ought to have
formed part of the documents supplied to the Court along
with Final Report under
Section 173(5)(b)
of the Cr.P.C.

The trial Court at paragraph 34.9 has observed that
the accused do no dispute that the inquiry initiated in
Crl.M.P.No.3238/1996 under
Section 202
of Cr.P.C. was
merged with Spl.C.C.No.7/1997 as per the orders dated
26.6.1997 passed by the XI Additional Judge/Spl.Judge,
Chennai-1. It has come in evidence that pursuant to the
orders passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, P.W.259
conducted the investigation in both the proceedings
simultaneously and submitted the charge sheet on
4.6.1997. The report of the inquiry was submitted to the
Court on 17.6.1997 and is marked as Ex.P.2320. In the
cross-examination of P.W.259 at para-29, it is elicited that
the documents produced before the Chennai Metropolitan
Principal Sessions Judge were sent to the Special Court
which means that all the documents collected by PW.259
during the inquiry under
Section 202
of Cr.P.C. were
forwarded to the Court. Therefore, the contention of the
learned counsel for the accused that the documents which
were collected during inquiry under
Section 202
of Cr.P.C.
were not made part of the final report is factually
incorrect. Even accepting for the sake of argument that
the material collected during the inquiry under Section 202
is relied on by PW.241 for the purpose of registering the
FIR, it cannot be considered as material irregularity much
less an illegality which has the effect of nullifying the trial.

The trial Court at paragraph 35.17 of the judgment
has observed in the case in hand, it is proved in evidence,
PW.259 was initially authorized by PW.240 as required
under II Proviso to
Section 17
of the Act as per Ex.P.2265.
This authorization was in force until PW.241 issued
authorization as per Exs.P.2308 and P.2309. It was
argued by the learned counsel for A-1 that authorisations-
Exs.P.2308 and P.2309 were got up later. There is nothing
in the evidence to indicate that Exs.P.2308 and P.2309
were fabricated by PW.259. Accused did not recall PW.241
to confront the above documents so as to impeach the
testimony of PW.259. The prosecution has marked 14
authorizations issued by PW.241 under
Sections 17
and
of the Prevention of Corruption Act as per Exs.P.2267 to
P.2271 and Ex.P.2272 series. It is important to note that
the copies of all these authorizations are marked to
Tr.N.Nallamma Naidu and to the Principal Sessions and
Special Judge, Chennai. If PW.241 had not appointed
Tr.Nallamma Naidu as Investigating Officer as now sought
to be contended, there was no necessity for PW.241 to
mark the copies of these authorizations to PW.259. This is
one of the strong circumstances to indicate that PW.241
had issued the authorizations to PW.259 as contended by
the prosecution.

It is also necessary to note that Ex.P.2308 is dated
18.09.1996 and it is issued by PW.241 under his signature
in exercise of the powers conferred under second proviso
to
Section 17
of the Act. Ex.P.2309 is also dated
18.9.1996 and it is issued in exercise of the powers under

Section 18
of the Act. Both these documents are signed
and dated by PW.241 whose signatures tally with his
signatures found in Exs.P.2267 and P.2272. The reasons
for issuance of the authorizations are clearly spelt out in
Exs.P.2308 and P.2309. All these circumstances therefore
lead to the definite conclusion that, these authorizations
were issued by PW.241 in fulfillment of the requirement of

Sections 17
and
of the Act.

In appreciating evidence, it is relevant to note that
the chief-examination of PW.241 was recorded on
17.8.2000 and he was cross-examined on 29.1.2003 and
by then, A-1 had assumed the Office of the Chief Minister.
It is seen from the records that there were serious
allegations of subversion of justice which lead to transfer
of the case to the State of Karnataka. The change of
stance of PW.241 during the cross-examination has to be
understood in this background. A reading of the cross-
examination of PW.241 undoubtedly indicate that PW.241
has buckled under pressure and has disowned his own
testimony and denied the documents executed by him in
his official capacity. In any case, the hostile testimony
given by PW.1 in this regard being inconsistent to the facts
established by the prosecution and the unimpeachable
documentary evidence produced before the Court, the
above portion of the testimony of PW.241 does not lead to
the conclusion that PW.259 had no authorization to
conduct the investigation as contended by the accused.
Thus, on cumulative consideration of the testimony of
PW.240, PW.241 and PW.259 coupled with the
documentary evidence discussed above, I do not have any
hesitation to hold that PW.259 was duly authorized to
investigate the offence as per
Sections 17
and
of the
Act and the said authorizations are in accordance with the
provisions of
Sections 17
and
of the Act.

The trial Court at paragraph 36.4 has observed that
the accused were even examined under
Section 313
of the
Cr.P.C. before the transfer of the case to the State of
Karnataka in 2003 and the accused did not even raise a
little finger complaining any ambiguity in the charge. On
the other hand after the transfer of the case, the accused
themselves have examined as many as 99 witnesses and
have produced voluminous documents in support of their
defence which include documents relating to the properties
standing in the names of the 32 firms or companies named
in the charge sheet making it evident that they were
posted with all necessary particulars regarding the name
and constitution of the firms/companies. In the course of
putting questions to the accused in their examination
under Section 313 before the Bangalore Court, all the
necessary information regarding the allegations which
constitute the basis for the above charges have been
conveyed. More importantly, A-1 to A-3 have filed detailed
statement under Section 243(1), wherein, the accused
have taken specific defence in respect of each items of
Annexures - I to VII including the properties standing in
the name of the firms and companies. Therefore, I do not
find any propriety on the part of the accused now to
contend that they are misled by the charges framed by the
Court by not furnishing the details of the 32
firms/companies.

The trial Court at paragraph 36.5 has observed that
viewed from another angle, the wordings of the charge on
the face of it give a clear indication of the acts committed
by the accused during the check period pursuant to the
alleged criminal conspiracy and abetment i.e. the
acquisition and possession of assets either in their names
or in the name of the firms or company. There may be
some dispute as to whether the companies were floated by
any of the accused as alleged by the prosecution as the
evidence indicate that all these companies were
incorporated earlier to the check period. But the charge
having been framed on the basis of the accusations
contained in the charge sheet and the accompanying
documents the correctness of the charge cannot be
challenged on that count. The charge as framed indicates
that, there was only one object of the conspiracy and that
was to acquire assets for and on behalf of A-1. The
argument of the learned counsel that the dominant object
of the conspiracy was not within the knowledge of A-3 and
A-4 as most of the properties were purchased by them
subsequent to 1994, does not alter the nature of the
charge. The particulars as to time, place and the nature of
the offence is clearly spelt out in the charge as required
under Section 212 and the name of the offence with
reference to the provisions of the statute is also stated
therein in compliance with the requirements of Section 213
of the Code. There is no requirement under law to specify
the individual instances of acquisitions or the modus-
operandi adopted by the accused to effectuate the
conspiracy. Moreover, the nature of the offence is such
that all the particulars of the transactions as sought for by
the accused cannot be furnished in the charge. When
conspiracy is alleged, act of one conspirator becomes the
act of the other. Therefore, there is no necessity to
specify the individual properties or assets held by the
individual accused. The charge as framed informs the
accused not only the offence for which he or she is
proposed to be tried but also refers to the acquisitions
made by them in the manner stated in the charge during
the check period pursuant to the conspiracy in furtherance
of the same transaction. Therefore the argument of the
learned counsel that the charge in question is misleading
and is contrary to the provisions of the code cannot be
accepted.

The trial Court at paragraph 36.6 of the judgment
has observed that the above argument appears to have
canvassed by misreading the charge and on the erroneous
assumption that the prosecution case is based on the
premise that the assets of non public servant are
attributed to the public servant. But it is not so. The
assets of the non public servant are not attributed to A-1
as contended by the learned counsel, rather the case of
the prosecution is that, all the acquisitions made by the
accused during the check period in their names either in
their individual capacity or as partners of the firms or
Directors of the Company are the disproportionate assets
of A-1. The accused have very well understood the charge
in this manner and have let in evidence in disproof of this
charge. This is evident from the conduct of the accused
right from the date of framing the charge i.e., 06.10.1997
till the conclusion of arguments, the accused did not raise
any objection regarding charge either before this court or
before the High Court or the Supreme Court even though
the matter has traveled to the superior courts umpteen
number of times during the last 16 years. All these
circumstance go to show that there has been no defect in
the charge and the accused were not subjected to any
prejudice as now sought to be contended.

The trial Court at paragraph 36.7 of the judgment
has observed that it is not the defence of the accused that
they were not constituents of any of the 32 firms or the
companies at any point of time. If the accused were not
involved in any of the firms or the companies listed in the
charge sheet, accused would have been justified in
contending that they are seriously prejudiced by the
charge as framed. The very fact accused have taken up a
specious plea that they have already resigned from the
directorship of the companies and therefore, they are not
liable to answer the acquisitions made in the name of the
respective companies, there is no basis or justification for
the accused to contend that by not specifying the name of
the firms or the company they are disadvantaged or
prejudiced in their defence. This argument suffers from
inherent contradictions apart from being contrary to the
facts of the case.

The trial Court at paragraph 36.8 of the judgment
has observed that the whole object of the charge is to
inform both the prosecution and the accused particularly,
of the accusation the prosecution has to establish and the
accused has to meet. So long as the accused knows fully
the accusation he has to meet, any error in the narrative
of the charge does not become fatal to the trial. Section
215 of the Code saves the trial from being vitiated unless
of course the accused has been prejudiced and failure of
justice has taken place. In the instant case accused have
not been able to point out any such instance or
circumstance which could be termed as 'prejudice' leading
to miscarriage of justice. Therefore viewed from any
angle, I do find any reason to uphold the contention urged
in this regard.

The trial Court at paragraph 36.9 of the judgment
has held that the charges framed against the accused are
in accordance with the requirement of the Code and do not
suffer from any vice or illegality as contended by the
accused. By the said charges the accused are clearly
informed about the offence for which they are tried and
the necessary facts constituting the offence under
Sections
,
120-B
of the Indian Penal Code read with
Section
13(1)(e)
read with
Section 13(2)
of the Prevention of
Corruption Act have been conveyed to them and accused
have not only understood the charge but have availed full
opportunity to defend them. For all these reasons the
objection raised in this regard is hereby rejected.

The trial Court at paragraph 37.6 of the judgment
observed that merely because the properties in question
are registered in the name of some Companies cannot be a
ground to hold that the inclusion of the said properties as
the assets of the accused is contrary to law or procedure
as sought to be contended.

The trial Court at paragraph 37.8 of the judgment
has observed that it is trite law that jurisdiction of the
criminal Court extends over crime and the criminal. The
question of trying the Company or its Director would arise
only if the offence is alleged to have been committed by
the Company or its Directors rendering them liable for
prosecution. In the instant case, there is no allegation of
any offence being committed by the Companies. The
prosecution is launched on the basis of the accusation that,
A-2 to A-4 have floated these companies in order to
facilitate the acquisition and possession of properties for
and on behalf of A-1. If the prosecution is able to
establish that the said acquisitions were made solely and
exclusively by A-2 to A-4, without any involvement of the
Companies, without the funds of the companies and that
the properties in question were never treated as the
properties of the said Companies, there is no reason why
the Companies should be made parties to the prosecution
merely because accused used the name of the Companies
as a cover or camouflage to justify the wrongs committed
by them. The doctrine of lifting the corporate veil would
come into play in such circumstances. Whether the
prosecution would be able to prove this aspect of the case
and whether the evidence on record is sufficient to record
a finding in this regard is a different matter altogether. As
long as the prosecution case is rested on the allegations
that A-2 to A-4 acquired the properties in question in the
name of the Companies, in my opinion, the said
Companies do not require to be made parties to the
prosecution launched against A-2 to A-4. For example, if a
public servant enters into a conspiracy with a non-public
servant to acquire illegal assets and the non-public servant
acquires the property and registers it in the name of his or
her minor nephew, the said minor need not be made a
party to the criminal proceedings launched against public
servant, unless the beneficiary thereof is also accused of
abetment or conspiracy.

The trial Court at paragraph 37.9 of the judgment
observed that the argument of the learned Counsel that in
the event of the criminal court ultimately deciding to pass
an order for forfeiture of the properties it would impinge
upon the Constitutional right of the Companies guaranteed
under
Art. 300A
of the Constitution is misconceived,
premature and without any substance. The provisions of
the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 provides
for effective remedy to third parties whose properties are
attached in connection with prosecution of the offence
under the Act. It is borne on record that all the companies
named in the charge sheet have taken recourse to the
provisions of
Sec.5
of the Criminal Law (Amendment)
Ordinance, 1944 and an adverse order has been passed
against the companies holding that the properties involved
in this proceedings standing in the name of the respective
companies are not acquired out of the lawful resources of
the companies and the consideration paid thereon do not
represent the funds of the said companies. In this context
it is pertinent to refer to another decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Biswanath
Bhattacharya vs. Union of India, AIR 2014 S.C. 1003
wherein, it is held, "If a subject acquires property by
means which are not legally approved sovereign would be
perfect and justified to deprive such persons of the
enjoyment of such ill-gotten wealth. There is a public
interest in ensuring the persons who cannot establish that
they have legitimate sources to acquire the assets held by
them do not enjoy such wealth." In the light of the above
factual and legal position, the contention urged by the
accused in this regard is liable to be rejected and is
accordingly rejected.

The trial Court at paragraph 38 of the judgment has
observed that coming to the last contention urged by the
learned counsel for the accused that the proceedings were
launched against them out of political vendetta at the
instance of the political opponent of A-1 is concerned, it
should be noted that this contention is already rejected by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while dealing with the
Transfer petition No.77-78 of 2003. Observing that the
said argument is an argument of despair, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held in the order dated 18.11.2003
that "In a democracy, the political opponents play an
important role both inside and outside the House. They
are the watchdogs of the Government in power. It will be
their effective weapon to counter the misdeeds and
mischievous of the Government in power. They are the
mouthpiece to ventilate the grievances of the public at
large, if genuinely and unbiasedly projected. In that view
of the matter, being a political opponent, the petitioner is
vitally interested party in the run of the Government or in
the administration of criminal justice in the State."

The trial Court at paragraph 39 of the judgment has
dealt with charges and points for consideration. The
points for consideration are as under:

1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that A-1, being a
public servant acquired and possessed in
her name and in the names of A-2 to A-4
and in the names of business enterprises
floated in their names, pecuniary
resources and assets of the value of
Rs.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?

2. Whether the prosecution further proves
beyond reasonable doubt that A-1 to 4
were parties to a criminal conspiracy with
the object of acquiring and possessing
pecuniary resources and assets to the
extent of Rs.66,65,20,395/- in the names
of A-1 and in the names of A-2 to 4 and
the 32 business enterprises floated in the
names of A-2 to 4 and thereby committed
the offence punishable u/Sec. 120-B of

Indian Penal Code
R/w.
Sec.13 (2)
R/w.

Sec. 13 (1) (e)
of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988?

3. Whether the prosecution further proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that A-2 to A-
4 abetted the commission of the above
offence by intentionally aiding A-1 in the
acquisition and possession of pecuniary
resources and properties disproportionate
to her known source of income by holding
substantial portion thereof in their names
and in the names of 32 business
enterprises floated in the names of A-2 to
A-4, rendering them liable for conviction
for the offence punishable u/Sec. 109

Indian Penal Code
R/w.
Sec. 13(2)
R/w.
Sec.13(1)(e)
of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988?

4. What order?

The trial Court at paragraph 42 of the judgment has
dealt with the check period. The check period is from
1.7.1991 to 30.4.1997.

The trial Court at paragraph 42.2 of the judgment
has observed that In the instant case, the prosecution has
placed before the Court the details of all the assets and
properties held by the accused right from the year 1970
and has taken into account the income derived from these
properties in the form of rentals, interest from deposits,
agricultural income etc., in order to enable the court to
have a fair view of the controversy seized by the Court.
There is no argument from any quarters that the choice of
the check period has caused any prejudice or disadvantage
to the accused in any manner. Hence, in my view, the
period of 5 years selected by the prosecution is 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 these proceedings.

The learned Sessions Judge at paragraph 43 of the
judgment has dealt with the assets of the accused at the
commencement of the check period and has re-produced
Annexure-I marked as Ex.P.2327.
ANNEXURE - I
(ASSETS AS ON 1.7.1991)

Sl. Description of the property Standing in Value of the
No the name property (Rs.)
of
1 Land and building at No. 36, M/s Natya 1,32,009.00
Poes Garden Chennai-86 (Sy. Kala
No. 1567 Of Tenampet) Nikethan,
purchased from R. Sarala rep. by Tmt.
N.R.
Sandhya
and Selvi J.
Jayalalitha
2 Door No. 8/3/1099, Ward No. 8, ,, 50,000.00
Block No. 3 in plot No. 36 to the
extentof651.18Sq. Mtrs.building in
Sri Nagar OfficersColony,Hyderabad
Citypurchased from Koka Sambasiva
Rao, S/o Hariprakash Rao atDoor
No. 8/3/1099 in Sri NagarOfficers
Colony, Hyderabad city.

3 Two Farm houses, Servant ,, 1,65,058.50
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)
4 Land in Sy. No. 93/3 to the extent ,, 13,254.50
of 3.15 acres(1.36 Hectares) at
Pet Basheerbad village in
Medchal Tq. in A-P.,
5 Agricultural land measuring 3.43 Selvi J. 17,060.00
acres in Cheyyhur village in Sy. Jayalalitha
No. 366/2,5,6 purchased from
M.N. Venkatachala Mudaliar, S/o
Natesa Mudaliar, No. 1046/8,
Thiruvotriyur Main Road,
Kaladipettai, Chennai.
6 Land and flat No. 7, R.R. Flats, Tmt. N. 3,13,530.00
3/4 , Antu Street, Santhome, Sasikala
Chennai-4 of Smt N. Sasikala
C - Rs. 2,75,000/-
S - Rs. 35,750/-
F - Rs. 2,780/-
7 Building at Door No. 19, M/s Jaya 5,70,039.00
Pattammal Street, Chennai in Publications
Plot No. 83, R.S. No. 4087, (Selvi J.
Extent 18907 Sq. ft. purchased Jayalaitha
from V.H. Subramanian, S/o H. and Tmt. N.
Venkatasubban,15, Venkatraman Sasikala)
Street, Srinivasa Avenue,
Chennai-28
Shop No. 14, Ground Floor at 98,904.00
8 602, Anna Salai, Chennai-6
purchased from Mohd. Hanif, No.
7, Gulam Abbas Ali Khan, 1st
Street,ThouslandLights,Chennai-6 M/s Sasi
in the name of M/s Enterprises
Sasi Enterprises
C - Rs. 85,000/-
S - Rs. 13,045/-
F - Rs.859/-

9 Undivided share of land only at ,, 2,10,919.00
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
10 Land and building at Door No. Selvi J. 3,60,509.00
213/B, St. Mary's Road in Sy. Jayalalitha
NO. 72, New No. 212, Extent
1206 Sq.ft. Ft. purchased from K.
Selvaraj, S/o Munusamy Naidu,
44, Vanniyampathy Street,
Mandaveli, Chennai-28
11 Shop No. 18 of 189 Sq. ft. in ,, 1,05,409.00
ground floor at Door No. 602,
Mount Road together with
th
54/42656 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
12 Land and building at Tanjore in M/sSasiEnterp 1,57,125.00
Sy. No. 1091 to the extent of rises
2400 Sq. Ft. purchased from V.N. (partners-
Somasundaram, S/o V. SelviJ.
Jayalalitha
Namachiayam, 14, Thilagar
andSmt N.
Street, Ayyappa Nagar, Trichy. Sasikala)

13 Vacant site at H.D.Road, in 3rd M/s Sasi 1,15,315.00
Dvn. 6th Ward, Haar Nombu Enterprises
Chavadi in Tanjore to the extent
of 5100 Sq. ft. in T.S. No.1091
purchasedfromK Loganathan,
S/o K.N.Kuppusamyof1279,Old Nellu
Mettu St. East Gate,Tanjore.
14 Vacant site at Ward No. 6 in ,, 2,02,778.00
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.
15 Land and building at Tmt. N. 5,85,420.00
Abishekapuram, Ponnagar in Sasikala
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.
16 Dry land to the extent of 3.23 M/s Sasi 75,210.00
acres in Sy. No. 402-2 of Enterprises
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.
17 Land and building at Thiru Vi. KA- M/s Jaya 5,28,039.00
Industrial Estate, Guindy in Sy. Publications
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
18 Maruthi car bearing Reg. No. Selvi J. 60,435.00
TMA 2466 (new) Jayalalitha
19 Contessa car bearing Reg. No. ,, 2,56,238.00
TN-09/0033
20 Swaraj Mazda van bearing Reg. ,, 1,76,172.67
No. TSI 9090
21 Trax jeep bearing Reg. No. TSJ ,, 1,04,000.00
22 Swaraj Mazda van bearing Reg. ,, 2,99,845.00
No. TSR 333
23 Trax jeep bearing Reg. No. TSJ ,, 1,04,000.00
24 Cash balance as on 1.7.1991 in Tmt. N. 13,601.98
Canara Bank at Kellys branch Sasikala
with SB Acc. No. 38746 opened
on 30.12.1988 in the name of
Tmt. N. Sasikala
25 Cash balance as on 1.7.1991 in Selvi J. 9,18,210.29
Central Bank of India, Jayalalitha
Secunderabad with SB Acc. No.
20614 opened on 19.5.1989 in
the name of Selvi J. Jayalalitha
26 Cash balance as on 1.7.1991 in Namadhu 5,51,826.94
Canara Bank of Mylapore branch MGR
with CA No. 1952 opened on
23.10.1989 in the name of
Namadhu MGR in which Selvi J.
Jayalalitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala
are partners
27 Cash balance as on 1.7.1991 in Tmt. N. 1,40,198.25
Canara Bank of Mylapore branch Sasikala
with SB Acc. No. 23218 opened
on 23.5.1990 in the name of Tmt.
N. Sasikala

28 Cash balance as on 1.7.1991 in M/s Jaya 7,83,860.97
Canara Bank of Mylapore branch Publications
with CA No. 2047 opened on rep. by Selvi
26.9.1990 on transfer from Kellys J. Jayalalitha
branch in the name of Selvi J. and Tmt. N.
Jayalalitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala Sasikala
29 F.D. No. 451/1990, dt. 19.6.1990 ,, 64,520.00
with Canara Bank of Mylapore
30 Cash balance as on 1.7.1991 in Selvi J. 2,57,886.25
the Bank of Madurai, Anna Nagar Jayalalitha
branch with SB Acc. No. 5158
opened on 28.2.1990 in the
name of Selvi J. Jayalalitha
31 Cash balance as on 1.7.1991 in ,, 2,40,835.02
Canara Bank of Mylapore branch
with CA No. 2018 opened on
12.10.1990 in the name of Selvi J.
Jayalalitha
32 Cash balance as on 1.7.1991 in ,, 5,20,396.45
Canara Bank of Mylapore branch
with SB Acc. No. 23832 opened
on 16.4.1991 in the name of Selvi
J. Jayalalitha
Cash balance as on 1.7.1991 in M/s Sasi 2,29,578.49
Canara Bank of Mylapore branch Enterprises
with CA No. 2061 opened on
21.3.1991 in the name of Sasi
Enterprises in which both Selvi J.
Jayalalitha and Tmt. N. Sasikala
are the partners
34 FD in Kothari Oriental Finance in Selvi J. 1,00,000.00
the name of Selvi J. Jayalalitha Jayalalitha
35 ,, ,, ,,
36 ,, ,, ,,
37 FD with Sriram Finance in the ,, 3,00,000.00
name of Selvi J. Jayalalitha
38 ,, ,, 5,00,000.00
39 ,, ,, 20,00,000.00
40 ,, ,, 7,00,000.00
41 Investment in the form of Equity ,,
shares in Madras Oxygen and
Acetylene Co., Ltd., Coimbatore
by J. Jayalalitha's mother during
1969 and 1971and inherited by
Selvi J. Jayalalitha
42 Investment in the form of shares ,,
in Kunal Engineering Co., Ltd.,
Ambattur, Madras-58 by Selvi J.
Jayalalitha on 22.5.1978 for 1000
shares which have secured 500
bonus shares on 18.2.1983
43 Value of 2140 old sarees and ,, 4,21,870.00
other dresses found at No. 36,
Poes Garden at the time of
search
44 86 items of jewels of Selvi J. ,, 17,50,031.00
Jayalalitha as evaluated by M/s
VBC Trust on 31.3.1991
45 62 items of jewels claimed to be Tmt. N. 9,38,460.00
of Tmt. N.Sasikala as evaluated Sasikala
by M/s VBC Trust on 31.3.1991
46 Silver wear weighing 700 kgs (as Selvi J. 28,00,000.00
per the IT returns filed by Selvi J. Jayalalitha
Jayalalitha) (value worked out at
the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per kg.)
47 Amount deposited in MIDS No. ,, 10,00,000.00
716767, dt. 30.4.1990 of Bank of
Madurai, Anna Nagar for 2 years
by Selvi J. Jayalalitha which was
in force as on 1.7.1991
48 Cash balance as on 1.7.1991 in ,, 21,389.00
CDS - ITP Acc. No. 32 of Selvi J.
Jayalalitha in Central Bank of
India, T. Nagar branch, Chennai-
17.
49 FD of Rs. 5 lakh deposited in ,, 5,00,000.00
Sriram Investments Ltd.,
deposited on 12.11.1990 by Selvi
J. Jayalalitha from her SB Acc.
No. 5158 o BOM, Anna Nagar
branch which after subsequent
renewals is to mature on
29.1.1998.
50 Advance amount paid for M/s Sasi 50,000.00
purchase of 72/12000 undivided Enterprises
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)
51 MIDR No. 66/9 with Central Bank Selvi J. 3,00,000.00
of India, Secunderabad Jayalalitha
deposited on 2.5.1990
52 Cash balance as on 1.7.1991 in ,, 1,80,031.22
SB Acc. No. 38671 of Canara
Bank, Kellys in the name of Selvi
J. Jayalalitha
Grand Total
otal 2,01,83,956.53

A bare perusal of Annexure-I indicates that the
prosecution has furnished the details of theproperties
inherited by A-1 from her deceased mother N.R. Sandhya
and also the properties acquired by her prior to the check
period either in her individual name or in partnership with
A-2. Annexure-I also contains the list of movables and
the value thereof and cash balance in her bank account
as on 01.07.1991 including the value of the gold and
silver articles. These particulars indicate that A-1 was
possessed with substantial means even before the check
period. It is also relevant to note that the value of the
immovable property is determined on the basis of the
actual consideration shown in the respective deeds and
not on the basis of the market value of the properties as
on the date of the Charge Sheet. Hence, the accused
cannot have any grouse regarding the valuation of these
assets as stated in Annexure-I.

However, in her written statement A-1 has taken up
a plea that the very same investigating agency had
registered another case against A-1 and A-2 in
Cr.No.14/AC/97/HQ, wherein, the very same investigating
officer PW.259 had computed the value of the total assets
at Rs.2,64,26,295.13 and therefore, the difference of
Rs.62,42,338.60 should be added to the total value of the
assets possessed by her at the beginning of the check
period.A-2 in her written statement has taken up a plea
that the number of jewellery shown in item No.45 should
be 96 instead of 62. Further, she has contended that, in
the Final Report filed by D.V. & A-C. in the earlier
complaint, the amount available with A-2 was shown as
Rs.9,35,000/-. The opening cash balance available was at
Rs.5,69,014/-. Hence, the cash on hand amounting to
Rs.15,14,014/- ought to have been included in Annexure-
I.
The learned Sessions Judge at paragraph 43.5 of the
judgment has observed that it is really shocking to note
that the Dy.S.P. of DV & AC., who is the complainant in
this case has given evidence on behalf of the accused.
Though it is submitted that, the D.V. & A-C. has produced
the above documents pursuant to the summons issued by
the Court, it is surprising to note that, the D.V. & A.C has
produced only the xerox copy of the order said to have
been passed by the Spl. Judge, Chennai dt. 24.01.2005 in
Cr.No.14/AC/97/HQ (R.C.63/97/ Misc/HQ) knowing fully
well that xerox copy is inadmissible in evidence. It is
marked as Ex.D.373. By the said order, the Spl. Judge is
seen tohave accepted the final Report and closed the case
on 24.01.2005. I fail to understand why the certified
copies of these documents could not have been produced
by the accused, instead of summoning DW.99, when it is
the case of the accused that the complaint registered
against A-1 and A-2 at the instance of the D.V. & A.C.
came to be closed by orders of the court.

Be that it may, based on the Final Report Ex.D.372,
the learned Counsel for A-1 has now put forth a contention
that the very same investigating officer, having submitted
a report to the effect that, A-1 and A-2 were in possession
of total assets of Rs.2,64,26,295.13 as on 30.01.1991 this
figure ought to have been taken into account for the
purpose of fixing the value of the assets held by the
accused at the commencement of the check period. I am
not inclined to accept this argument for the following
reasons:
i) From the documents produced before the
Court, it cannot be known whether the very
same Final Report now marked as D.372
was produced before the Court.

ii) The contents of the Final Report submitted
u/Sec. 173
Cr.P.C
. cannot be taken as a
conclusive proof of the correctness of the
facts stated therein. Ex.D.372 is only the
opinion of the investigating officer. It is not
legal evidence.

iii) From the reading of Ex.D.373 it cannot be
gathered that, the Spl. Judge has closed
Cr.No.14/AC/97/HQ based on the very
same report Ex.D.372 as contended by the
accused.

iv) The accused have not produced any
independent evidence to show that A-1 and
A-2 were in possession of any other assets
and pecuniary resources than those
described in Annexure-I.

v) According to DW.99, Cr.No.14/AC/97/HQ
relates to the check period between
01.09.1988 and 30.01.1991. Whereas, the
check period in the instant case commences
from 1.7.1991. Unless it is shown that all
the assets and pecuniary resources referred
in Ex.D.372 were available in the same form
and condition till 1.7.1991, the above plea
cannot be accepted. In this context it is
pertinent to note that in her written
statement filed u/Sec. 313
Cr.P.C
., A-1 has
contended that the variation in the items of
jewellery is on account of remaking of old
jewellery into new patterns. This
statementimplies that the subject matter of
Ex.D.372 were not available in the same
form and extent as on 1-7-1991. That
apart, accused have not produced any
independent evidence to show that they
were in possession of cash and other items
of property as on 1.7.91 as claimed by A-2.
Therefore, for want of necessary material in proof of
the above contention, we have to proceed on the basis
that at the commencement of the check period as on
1.7.1991, the total value of the assets and pecuniary
resources found in the possession of A-1 and A-2 is of the
value of Rs.2,01,83,956.53 as described in Annexure-I.

The learned Sessions Judge at paragraph 44 of the
judgment has dealt with the income of the accused and at
paragraph 45 of the judgment has dealt with the
objections of the accused.

The learned Sessions Judge at paragraph 45 of the
judgment has observed that A-1 has taken up a plea
during her examination u/Sec. 313
Cr.P.C
. and in the
written statement filed u/Sec. 243(1)
Cr.P.C
. that the
following income has not been taken into account by the
prosecution, viz.:
(a) Cash on hand-Rs.8,56,365/-
(b) Advance for purchase
of Maruti Gypsy - Rs. 2,00,000/-
(c) Advance for 31-A
Poes Garden - Rs. 1,00,000/-

Further, she has contended that, while computing
the income by way of interest during the check period,
D.V. & A.C. has not taken into account the large amounts
received by her by way of interest amounting to
Rs.78,20,657/- as per her Income Tax returns filed and
accepted by the Department.
45.1) A-1 has further contended that she owned for
a long time a grape garden at Hyderabad purchased by
her in 1968. It had large number of grape vines fully
grown and yielding, besides a large number of fruit
bearing trees. She had been receiving and declaring the
income from the same in her Income Tax returns even
before the check period which was duly accepted by the
Department.

45.2) Nextly, it is contended that, during her
birthdays, AIADMK Party cadres, out of respect and
admiration, used to give presents by way of cash and
drafts. On her 44th birthday in February 1992, she received
a total amount of Rs.2,15,00,012/- (Rupees Two Crores
Fifteen Lakhs and Twelve) by way of gifts. Besides the
above, a foreign remittance of Rs.77,52,591/- was also
received by her.5.3) A-2 Sasikala has taken up specific plea
regarding the income received by her during the check
period as under:

1. Loans availed from Indian bank:-

Item Particulars Amount Availed by
No. of loan
availed
1 Loan from Indian Bank, 25,00,000 Sasi Enterprises
Abirampuram
2 Loan from Indian Bank, 28,00,000 J. Farm House
Abirampuram
3 Loan from Indian Bank, 7,00,000 J S Housing
Abirampuram Development
4 Loan from Indian Bank, 5,00,000 Jay Real Estate
Abirampuram
5 Loan from Indian Bank, 75,00,000 M/s. Anjaneya
Abirampuram Printers (P) Ltd.,
8 Loan from Indian Bank, 3,75,00,000 Kodanadu Tea
Abirampuram Estate
9 Loan fron Indian Bank, 1,00,00,000 M/s. J. Jay T.V.
Abirampuram Pvt. Ltd.

Interest income from Bank/ Financial Institutions:

S.No. Particulars Amount Income of
30 InterestincomefromCentralB 27,304.00 V.K.Sasikala
ankofIndia,
Secunderabad
37 Interestincomefrom 1,89,761.00 V.K.Sasikala
CanaraBankMylapore
vide S.B.-23218
38 Interestincomefrom 2,57,118.00 V.K.Sasikala
CanaraBankMylapore
VideFDRNo.718/92,954/92,1
397/92,236/93,
633/93, 868/93
39 InterestincomefromCanfin 10,03,191.00 V.K.Sasikala
for FDR No.189/91-
40 Rental income for the 2,23,000.00 V.K.Sasikala
house at No.16, Radhika
Colony, Secunderabad
41 Interest income from 3,901.00 V.K.Sasikala
Canara Bank, Kellys Vide
SB A/c. No.38746

3. Rental income from properties let out:-

S.No. Particulars Amount Income of
53 Rental income from 57, 37,67,358.00 Jaya
Ganapathy Colony, TVK Publications
Indl. Estate, Guindy.
54 Rental income from House 2,33,769.00 Jaya
at No.19, Pattammal Street, Publications
Mandaiveli
55 Rental income from House 3,82,500.00 M/s. Anjaneya
at No.21, Padmanabha Printers (P) Ltd.,
Street, T.
Nagar
57 Rental income from House 91,000.00 J.S. Housing
AtNo.1,MurphyStreet, Development
Akkarai
58 Rental income from Flat 1,94,000.00 v.K.Sasikala
No.7, Anthu Street,
Santhome
59 Rental income from shop at 2,70,900.00 Sasi Enterprises
No.14, Khadar Nawaz Khan
Road, Nungambakkam
61 RentalincomefromShop 2,01,000.00 Sasi Enterprises
No.9, Khadar Nawaz Khan
Road, Numbambakkam
62 Rental income from shop at 2,01,000.00 Sasi Enterprises
No.8, Khadar Nawaz Khan
Road, Numbambakkam.

4. Income from business operations of
the firms/ companies :-

It is further contended by A-2 that, the D.V. & A.C.
has intentionally taken all efforts to include assets not
related to her in order to boost the total value of assets
as that belonging to her and other associates who have
been made co-accused in the case, but has not included
income that accrued to her. According to her,she has
been doing business and earning income from several
businesses which include M/s. Jaya Publications, M/s. Sasi
Enterprises, M/s. Fresh Mushrooms, Dr. Namadhu MGR,
M/s. Fax Universal, M/s. Metal King, M/s. Anjaneya
Printers (P) Ltd., The D.V. & A-C. has included the value
of the assets standing in the name of firms / Companies
like Jaya Publications (including Dr. Namadhu MGR),
Kodanadu Tea Estate, Anjaneya Printers (P) Ltd., Sasi
Enterprises (C.A-No.1044) J. Jay T.V. Pvt. Ltd., Super
Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd., Metal King (C.A-No. 1245) Vinod
Video Vision etc., but has intentionally not included the
income from these entities.
i) In her written statement she had detailed the
income received by her from the above firms as under:

Loans
Sl. Particulars Amount Income of
No.
1 Loan from Housing and Real 25,00,000.00
Estate Development Pvt. Ltd., GreenFarm
HousePartner:
V.K.Sasikala-
2 Loan from Housing and Real 25,00,000.00
Estate Development Pvt. Ltd., J.Farm
HousePartner:
V.K.Sasikala-
3 Source from Mr. Krishnan, 17,62,738.00 J.Farm
Chennai House
Partner:
V.K.Sasikala

ii) Advance received from
M/s. Bharani Beach Resorts
Pvt. Ltd., on 17.02.1995 - Rs.22 lakhs.

iii) Income from M/s. Anjaneya
Printers (P) Ltd., - Rs.53,49,634/-
The learned Sessions Judge has dealt with the
income from Grape Garden at paragraph-46 of the
judgment.

The learned Sessions Judge at paragraph 46.1 has
observed that A-1 has claimed that the total agricultural
income received by her from the grape garden situate in
Hyderabad is Rs.52,50,000/-. Hence, it is necessary to
resolve the controversy by examining the material
produced before the Court by both the parties.

46.2) In support of its case, the prosecution has
examined PW.165, 166 and 256 and has relied on Ex.X-23
and Ex.P.938. PW.165 Tmt. K.R. Latha, is the Horticultural
Officer in the office of the Asst. Director of Horticulture,
Rangareddy District in Andhra Pradesh. According to this
witness, as per the directions of the Asst. Director of
Horticulture, on 10.12.1996 she proceeded to a garden at
J.D.Metla in Rangareddy District belonging to A-1 along
with the Horticulture Officer Sri. Sanjay Kumar. The
Dy.S.P. Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai, by name
Kadireshan (PW.256) was also present and in his presence
sheinspected the Horticultural crops raised in the said
garden. There were two varieties of grapes raised in the
said garden viz., Anab-E-Shahi and seedless variety. The
first type of grapes were found cultivated in 3.02 acres.
She could find 580 plants. The space occupied for raising
the said variety of grape for each crop was 15 x 15 feet.
She saw 1266 plants of seedless grapes in 1.84 acres. The
space occupied for raising the said variety was 7.5 x 8
feet. Apart from the grape vine, she saw crops such as
guava in 96 numbers in 0.89 acres and vegetable crops
such as bitter-gourd, coccinea, brinjal and other cucurbits.
Along the path ways and boundaries coconut trees and
pomegranate, banana, sitaphal, papaya trees and some
roses were seen. She furnished the above details to the
Asst. Director as well as to PW.256. She further deposed
that she was in the garden for two days for the purpose of
inspection. Apart from the plants, two buildings, one old
and a new building were also found in the property.

46.3) In the cross-examination it is elicited that
PW.165 was directed to inspect the garden by Mr. P.
Kondareddi, the Asst. Director. In the cross-examination
she identified the requisition given to the Asst. Director as
per Ex.X-23. It is further elicited that neither PW.165 nor
Sanjay Kumar gave any notice to the occupants. However,
it is elicited that there were 2 or 3 workers in the garden
during her visit. It is alsoelicited that the garden is
surrounded by a compound wall and one could gain entry
only through a gate. When it was specifically suggested to
PW.165 that agricultural crops are different from
horticultural crops, the witness answered that raising
coconut crops and vegetable crops are horticultural crops.
It is further elicited that the entire extent of the garden
was 16 acres and during their visit, they did not seek the
help of the Sarpanch. The garden was identified by
PW.256. During their inspection, they did not refer any
revenue records. She reiterated in the cross-examination
that in her report she has given the particulars of the
vegetables and the plants observed by her.

46.4) PW.166 P. Kondareddy, the Asst. Director of
Horticulture has corroborated the testimony of PW.165
stating that on 9.12.1996, PW.256 visited his office with
the requisition to inspect the garden belonging to A-1
situated at J.D.Metla village. After getting oral permission
from his superior officers, he deputed two Horticultural
Officers to make the inspection and after receiving the
report from them, he also visited the said garden. He
worked out the details regarding the cost of raising the
crops, gross and net income for raising the grapes and
submitted the report to the Director of Horticulture as per
Ex.P.938. In his chief-examination, this witness specifically
deposed that he is competent to assess the fixing of unit
cost for raising various cropsincluding grapes. He further
stated that, as an Asst. Director of Horticulture, his duty
was to supervise the work done by horticulture officers,
preparation of project reports and also to prepare the
assessment report for compensation to be paid to the
farmers. He used to follow NABARD's norm fixed for
commercial fruit crops. From his experience, he can also
assess the cost of cultivation, gross, net income of seedless
variety and anab-e-shahi variety of grapes. According to
this witness, the age of the seeded crop variety found in
the garden was 15 years and the age of the seedless
variety was four years. By adopting NABARD norms the
cost of the cultivation and yield was assessed by him. The
total income of seeded variety for the above period 1991-
96 was Rs.3,82,420/- and for the seedless variety from
1993 to 96, the net income was Rs.2,18,960/-. He further
deposed that he assessed liberally for arriving at the above
calculation.

46.5) In the cross-examination it is brought out that
he did not enclose the inspection report of Tr. Sanjay
Kumar and Latha with the copy of Ex.P.938 given to the
police and that he produced Ex.P.938 before the Court
during his examination-in-chief. It is further elicited that
he furnished Ex.P.938 evaluation on the basis of the
inspection report filed by PW.165 and Sanjay Kumar, but
he has not mentioned about his personal inspection in
Ex.P.938. It is also elicited thathis evaluations are only
approximate and probable one, subject to higher or lower
variations. It is also elicited that he did not record any
statement of the local people and his evaluation is
confined to grape vines only. He denied the suggestion
that, he prepared the report only to suit the police, but
reiterated that he prepared his report on the basis of the
report prepared by Latha and Sanjay Kumar.

46.6) PW.256 R. Kadireshan has deposed that on
10.12.1996 as per his request, PW.165 and Sanjay Kumar
estimated the value of the produce of the vine yard. In the
cross-examination, it is elicited that during the course of
investigation he had gathered information as to how much
income is generated through grape cultivation. It is also
elicited that vineyard is surrounded by profusely yielding
coconut trees and vegetables were also cultivated there.
He made enquiries with ten people who worked and lived
there. Further, to manage the grape cultivation, Manager
and his assistants were residing in the vine yard and he
inspected the accounts of the income and expenditure, but
did not seize those records. The photographs of the
vineyard and the buildings at Hyderabad were taken by
the officials belonging to the Police Department.

46.7) The learned Counsel for the A-1 has strongly
assailed the testimony of the above witnessescontending
that the report Ex.P.938 is not worthy of acceptance. It
was not enclosed with the final report. PW.166 has
admitted that he produced the said report on the date of
his examination before the Court on 25.05.2000 and there
is no explanation by the prosecution as to why the said
report was not produced along with the Charge Sheet.
That apart, PW.166 has admitted in the cross-examination
that the evaluation made by him are only approximate and
probable and therefore, the report submitted by this
witness even if accepted cannot be treated as the report of
an expert to determine either the cost of the grape
produce or the age of the plants. Likewise, the testimony
of PW.165 also cannot be given any credence as the
prosecution has not produced the report purported to have
been submitted by her to PW.166.

46.8) In support of the contention urged by A-1 that
the agricultural income derived by her from the grape
garden is more than the amount computed by the
investigating agency, the learned Counsel has placed
reliance on the income tax returns submitted by A-1 for
the year 1987-88 to 1992-93, and has emphatically
submitted that the assessing officer had accepted the
return of agricultural income submitted by A-1 and had
finalized the assessment u/Sec. 143(3) of the
Income Tax
Act
by accepting the agricultural income for the year 1992-
93 at Rs. 9,50,000/-. It is the submission ofthe learned
Counsel that, though at the instance of D.V. & A-C., the
said assessment was reopened in the year 1998 and the
assessing officer by his order dt. 28.03.2000 determined
the agricultural income for the year 1992-93 at
Rs.5,63,440/-, the appeals preferred by A-1 ultimately
came to be allowed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
holding that the reopening of the assessment was
unjustified, as a result, the income returned by the A-1 for
the assessment year 1992-93 at Rs.9,50,000/- stood
accepted by the Income Tax Authorities. The learned
Counsel further submitted that in respect of the
assessment year 1993-94, for some fault of the auditor,
the return was not filed, but in respect of the assessment
year 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 returns were filed by A-1
as per Ex.P.2173, 2175, 2176 and the agricultural income
declared therein has been accepted by the Income Tax
Authorities by force of the order of the Appellate Tribunal
in Ex.D.64 and hence this Court is required to accept the
findings of the Tribunal holding that the total agricultural
income derived by A-1 from the grape garden at Jeedi
Metla, Hyderabad during the check period is
Rs.52,50,000/-.

47. I have carefully considered the submissions
made at the Bar and have thoroughly scrutinized the oral
and documentary evidence produced by the parties and
have also gone through the orders passed by theIncome
Tax Authorities on the question of the agricultural income
of A-1. In so far as the extent of the agricultural land
owned by A-1, there is no controversy. It is borne on
record that, A-1 had inherited 14.50 acres of land at Jeedi
Metla, Hyderabad as described in item Nos.3 and 4 of
Annexure-I. It is also not in dispute that A-1 had raised a
grape garden in the said property. It is borne on record
that, in the month of November, 1992 A-1 filed returns for
the assessment year 1987-88 to 1992-93 wherein, A-1
declared the estimated agricultural income as under :
Assessment Year Estimated Agricultural income

1987-88 Rs.4,80,000

1988-89 Rs.5,50,000

1989-90 Rs.7,00,000

1990-91 Rs.8,00,000

1991-92 Rs.9,00,000

1992-93 Rs.9,50,000

47.1) The assessing officer finalized the assessment
and accepted the returned agricultural income declared by
A-1 and the assessment orders came to be passed as per
Ex.P.2123 (A/y.1987-88), Ex.P.2127 (A/Y. 1988-89)
Ex.P.2131 (Assessment year 1989-90), Ex.P.2135 (A/y.
1990-91) Ex.P.2139 (A/y. 1992-93). The assessment
details are as under:

Assessment Date of Date of Returned
Year filing the assessment agri.
returns of Income/Asse
/total order/asses ssed agri.
income sed Total Income.
returned Income
1987-88 13.11.1992 23.12.1994 Rs.4,80,000
Rs.26,850 Rs.9,29,080 Rs.4,80,000
1988-89 13.11.1992 23.11.1994 Rs.5,50,000
Rs.38,910 Rs.21,29,243 Rs.5,50,000
1989-90 16.11.1992 13.12.1995 Rs.7,00,000
Rs.25,200 Rs.30,97,075 Rs.7,00,000
1990-91 20.11.1992 2.3.1995 Rs.8,00,000
Rs.86,860 Rs.1,27,59,040 Rs.8,00,000
1991-92 20.11.1992 30.3.1994 Rs.9,00,000
Rs.4,48,660 Rs.80,65,250 Rs.9,00,000
1992-93 23.11.1992 21.3.1995 Rs.9,50,000
Rs.6,64,528 Rs.2,18,37,350 Rs.9,50,000
The learned Sessions Judge at paragraph 47.9 of the
judgment has observed that It is trite law that, the
criminal case has to be decided on the basis of the
evidence produced before the Court and not on the basis
of the findings recorded by the Income Tax Authorities. I
will be dealing with the relevancy and admissibility of the
assessment orders and the Income Tax proceedings while
considering the objections raised by the accused in relation
to other issues. For the present, I am of the firm view that
the orders passed by the Income Tax Authorities, relied on
by A-1 cannot be taken as conclusive proof of the factum
of cultivation and the income derived by A-1 from her
grape garden located at Jeedi Metla, Hyderabad. Even
otherwise, whatever evidentiary value attached to the
Income Tax returns relied on by the accused is seen to
have been taken away by the action taken by the income
tax Authority by reopening the assessment on the ground
that the finalization of the assessment for the year 1987 -
88 to 1992-93 was without any verification. Though
ultimately the Tribunal has held that reopening of the
assessment is bad, yet the fact remains that there was no
inquiry into the disputed issue. It is an admitted fact that
no documentary evidence was produced by the assessee
before the Income Tax Authorities to support the
claim.Even before this court A-1 has not produced any
reliable and acceptable evidence in support of her claim.

47.10) From the maze of evidence produced before
the Court, we are left with only the conflicting evidence
which cannot be reconciled with each other. The evidence
produced by the prosecution in proof of the above fact is
not at all satisfactory as PW.166 has unequivocally
admitted in his evidence that he based his reports on the
notes of inspection submitted by PW.165. The said notes
of inspection are not produced before the Court. PW.165
has conceded that she did not take the assistance of the
Sarpanch and did not refer to any revenue or survey
records. If so, it is not known as to how she could measure
the extent of the area used for cultivation of each variety
of grapes with accuracy as deposed by her. There is no
clear and definite evidence regarding the specific extent
used for the cultivation of grapes and for other crops.
PW.166 has also admitted that the original report was not
produced along with the Charge Sheet and both the
witnesses admit that they did not serve any notice to the
occupants of the garden at the time of inspecting the lands
in question. PW.256 has unequivocally stated that, he
inspected the account books and took photographs of the
garden which are not produced before the Court. These
documents would have thrown light on the true state of
facts. More importantly, thebasis on which the yield is
determined and their price is calculated by PW.166 is also
shrouded with suspicion. PW.166 states that he applied
NABARD method. But without there being specific evidence
with regard to the quantity of the yield and the rate
applicable to the produce at the relevant point of time, the
report marked through PW.166 becomes unreliable.

47.11) The evidence produced by A-1 is also equally
vague and ambiguous. A-1 having sought to enhance the
agricultural income is obligated to produce reliable and
acceptable evidence in support of her claim. But
unfortunately, the only evidence on which A-1 has sought
to sustain the claim for the higher valuation of the
agricultural income are the Income Tax returns which have
minimal evidentiary value in determining the extent of
cultivation, quantum of produce, cost of cultivation and the
price fetched by A-1 during the relevant years.
Undisputedly, these aspects are solely within the
knowledge of A-1. But, A-1 has failed to produce the best
evidence available in her possession, instead, has sought
to justify her claim on the basis of the assessment orders
which were admittedly passed on the basis of best
judgment assessment without any verification. It is not the
case of A-1 that she has been personally cultivating these
lands. A-1 is a resident of Chennai and the grape garden is
located in Andhra Pradesh. Naturally, A-1 might have been
getting theland cultivated through workers and labourers
who would have been the best witnesses to speak about
the cost of cultivation and the quantum of the yield and
the price prevalent at the relevant point of time. The
learned counsel for the accused has also not suggested to
any of the prosecution witnesses that the land is question
has the potentialities of yielding the income as claimed by
the accused. Apart from failing to produce any direct
evidence on her part A1 has also failed to bring on record
any circumstance in the evidence of the prosecution
justifying her claim. As a result there is no worthwhile
evidence to accept the claim of A-1.
47.12) Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that, A-1
has been holding 14½ acres of agricultural land wherein,
she has been growing grapes. Prosecution has proceeded
on the basis that grape garden is being grown in the said
lands. The certified copies of the pahanis produced in
evidence at Ex.P.2251 to P.2258 also corroborate the
contention of the accused that, grapes are grown in the
said property. Therefore, merely because A-1 has failed to
produce documentary evidence in proof of the produce
collected by her during the check period and the price
prevalent at the relevant time, her entire claim cannot be
rejected. Therefore, taking into consideration the common
facts observed in the above reports that about 10 acres of
land was being used for cultivation of grapes at the
relevant point oftime and having regard to the likely cost
of cultivation and the fluctuating price prevalent during the
check period, I am of the view that, it would be reasonable
to estimate the income from the grape garden at
Rs.20,000/- per acre per annum and thus, the total
agricultural income from the cultivation of the grape
garden would be Rs.2 lakhs per annum i.e., Rs.10 lakhs
for five years during the check period. In view of this
finding, the agricultural income of A-1 from the grape
garden is enhanced to Rs.10 lakhs from Rs.5,78,340/-
adding the difference of Rs.4,21,660/- to item No.33.

The learned Sessions Judge at paragraph 48 of the
judgment deals with Gifts. On 44th Birthday of A-1, out of
reverence and expression of love and loyalty, the party
workers presented her with gifts by way of cash and drafts
amounting to Rs.2,15,00,012/- and foreign remittance of
Rs.77,52,059/-.

The learned Sessions Judge at paragraph 48.11 of
the judgment has observed that in paragraph 49 of chief-
examination of DW.64, he has stated thus:

"The Central Bureau of Investigation
initiatedcriminal proceedings against A-1
Jayalalitha regarding the above gift items. The
action of the C.B.I. in initiating those proceedings
against A-1 Jayalalitha was challenged by A-1
Jayalalitha before Madras High Court in a Crl.
Petition filed used 482 of
Cr.P.C
. The said Crl.
Proceedings came to be quashed in entirety by the
Madras High Court."

In the cross-examination of DW.64, it is elicited that
the Income Tax returns for the assessment year 1991-92
to 1995-96 of A-1 were filed by her previous tax
consultant viz., R. Rajsekhar, PW.228. The said Rajsekhar
had also filed wealth tax returns of A-1 for the above
assessment years. From the above cross-examination, it
can be gathered that, DW.64 is not acquainted with the
true facts of the case and he is incompetent to speak
about the alleged gifts received by A-1 or the Income Tax
returns said to have been filed by her, as he was not the
auditor of A-1 at the relevant point of time.

48.14) It is observed in Ex.P.2145 that "the returns
claiming birthday presents were not filed in the respective
assessment years but long after. The extent of birthday
presents received by her during the previous year or in the
subsequent years is still not known. For the first four
years, assessment year 1987-88 to assessment year
1990-91 cash presents are conspicuous by their absence.
Again, in the first three years, it is jewellery and only
jewellery. No cash, No DDs". Therefore, considering all
these facts and the long delays in filing the returns, the
Commissioner held that A-1 has not satisfactorily
discharged the onus of proving the receipts as birthday
presents. It is noted therein that except the assessee's
word, there was no other material in proof of the receipt of
the large amount claimed by A-1 as gifts and presents.
Thus, the Commissioner of the Income Tax PW.215
recorded a finding that the monies and assets representing
the presents and assets would constitute the appellant's
income from undisclosed sources within the meaning of
Sec.69 and
Sec.69-A
of Income Tax Act.
In the cross-examination of PW.215, it is elicited
that, aggrieved by the above order, A-1 preferred an
appeal before the Tribunal II and it is still pending. It is
also brought out that the wealth tax returns werefiled by
her on 13.11.1992 and the wealth declared by her for the
relevant years are as under;

1988-89 - Rs.53,86,200/-

1989-90 - Rs. 80,17,700/-

1990-91 - Rs.1,88,75,400/-

1991-92 - Rs.2,60,55,750/-

1992-93 - Rs. 5,81,94,815/-
48.15) It is now well settled that, the receipt of
money or pecuniary resources in order to qualify as
"income" within the meaning of
Sec. 13 (1) (e)
of the Act,
as observed in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs.
Awadh Kishore Gupta, "qua the public servant,
theincome would be what is attached to his office or post,
commonly known as remuneration or salary". In thevery
same decision it is explained that though "income" is
receipt in the hands of its recipient, every receipt would
not partake the character of income. A receipt from
windfall, or gains of graft, crime or immoral secretions by
persons prima facie would not be receipt from the "known
source of income" of a public servant.

48.16) Though the receipt of birthday presents by
themselves may not amount to windfall or immoral
secretions, but in the facts of the present case, when A-1
claims to have received huge sum of Rs.2 crores and
foreign remittance as presents and gifts after sheassumed
the office of the Chief Minister creates serious doubts and
suspicion about the character of the funds received by her.
Naturally, a question arises in the mind, if her persona
attracted such huge presents from her party loyalists why
was the practice discontinued after 1992? Would she have
received similar admiration in cash and kind from her
party workers if she was out of office? It is not her case
that it was her professional income. All these questions
militate against the claim put forward by A-1. No doubt it
is true large number of her party workers have turned up
to depose in her favour and have identified some D.Ds
produced before the court, but even if their evidence is
accepted on its face value, the receipt of alleged presents
being illegal, their testimony does not render it legal. It is
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that:

"If public servants are allowed to acceptpresents
when they are prohibited under a penalty from
accepting bribes, they would easily curcumvent
the prohibition by accepting the bribe in the
shape of a present. The difference between the
acceptance of a bribe, made punishable u/Sec.
161 and 165
IPC
is this; under the former
section the present is taken as a motive or
reward for abuse of office; under the latter
section the question of motive or reward is
wholly immaterial and the acceptance of a
valuable thing without consideration or with
inadequate consideration from a person who has
or is likely to have any business to be
transacted is forbidden because though not
taken as a motive or reward for showing any
official favour, it is likely to influence the public
servant to showofficial favour to the person
giving such valuable thing. The provisions of Ss.
161 and 165 of
IPC
as also
S.5
of the Act are
intended to keep the public servant free from
corruption and thus, ultimately ensure purity in
public life. The evidence in the case, therefore,
should have been judged keeping these aspects
in view."

Alleged gifts received by A-1 cannot be treated as
lawful source of income within the meaning of
Sec. 13(1)
(e)
of the Act, hence the claim is disallowed.

The learned Sessions Judge at paragraph 50 of the
judgment has dealt with 'Namadu MGR'.

It is contended that, Jaya Publications was publishing
a daily newspaper called Namadhu MGR. It is an official
mouth piece of AIADMK Party, of which, A-1 is the General
Secretary. For greater dissemination of policies of the
party, it introduced a scheme deposit which was in vogue
from 1990 onwards. The firm had been collecting deposits.
The total collection during check period in cash was
Rs.14.01 crore. The cash so received was not only
deposited in two C.A. Nos. 1952 and 2047 of Canara Bank,
a portion of the cash so collected was put into her account
and also in the accounts of the firm, of which, she is the
partner for better utilization of the amount so collected
under refundable scheme deposit. The scheme deposits
and the monies collected was disclosed to the Income Tax
Department. It was accepted after deep scrutiny. The
appeal of the Department against the acceptance of the
scheme deposit has been rejected by the Tribunal. Under
this head, A-2 has sought to include Rs.14.01,000.00
(Rupees Fourteen Crores One Lakh only) as the income of
A-1 and A-2.
- Rs.14.01,000.00

vi) Income earned by Jaya Publications
from the Job works of printing
& publication - Rs. 1,15,94,849.00

vii) Foreign Inward Remittance
received by A-2 in 1992 - Rs.51,47,955.00

viii) Business income from
Metal King
- Rs.38,76,287.00
ix) Business income from
Vinod Video Vision - Rs.94,36,682.00

x) Advance from Meadow
Agro Farms (Pvt) Ltd., - Rs.32.09,000.00

xi) Advance from River way
Agro Products (Put) Ltd., - Rs.52,00,000.00

A-3 V.N.Sudhakaran has contended that, during the
investigation, the investigating officer had seized hundred
receipt books (Ex.P.2341 series) maintained by Super
Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd., containing hundred receipts each
acknowledging the receipt of Rs.5,000/- per person.
During investigation, he brought to the notice of the I.O.
about the income of the Super Duper Pvt. Ltd., In spite of
such sufficient proof, the I.O. has deliberately failed to
take into consideration the income of Super Duper T.V.
Pvt. Ltd., totaling to more than Rs. 1 crore.

In order to substantiate the claim of income
generated by Jaya Publications by introducing the deposit
scheme by name NAGADHU MGR, A-1 & A-2 have let in
five types of evidence viz.,

(i) Evidence of 31 witnesses who have
spoken about the deposit made by them
under the scheme.

(ii) Oral testimony of DW.88 who has spoken
about the application forms submitted by
the various subscribers.

(iii)Special audit report obtained by the
Income Tax Authorities u/Sec. 142-2-A as
per Ex.P.217.

(iv)Orders of the Commissioner of Income
Tax (Appeals) Ex.D.231 to D.234.

(v) Balance sheet filed along with the returns
as per Ex.D.218 to D.222.

50.3) The plea set up by the accused is that, ever
since 1990, A-1 and A-2 as partners of Jaya Publication
received in all a sum of Rs.15,05,14,323.60 towards the
scheme deposit. Out of the said amount, a sum of
Rs.13,54,000/- was collected prior to the check period.
Excluding this amount, the total deposit collected during
the check period was available with the firm to the tune of
Rs.13,89,19,475/-. In order toestablish this plea, A-1 and
A-2 have examined 31 witnesses. viz., DW.3, DW.4, DW.5,
DW.31, DW.32, DW.33, DW.34, DW.35, DW.36, DW.37,
DW.38, DW.39, DW.44, DW.45, DW.46, DW.47, DW.48,
DW.49, DW.50, DW.51, DW.52, DW.53, DW.55, DW.56,
DW.57, DW.58, DW.59, DW.60, DW.62, DW.63, DW.67.

50.4) All these witnesses have given a stereotyped
evidence before the Court stating that they are in the habit
of reading Namadhu MGR Newspaper and they have made
deposit ranging from Rs.12,000/- to Rs.18,000/- to
become the subscribers of the said newspaper and in
terms of the said deposit, they are supplied with 3 to 6
copies of Namadhu MGR news paper daily.

The accused have examined DWs.3, 4, 5, 31, 32, 33,
34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52,
53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 67 in support of their
case.

50.9) With regard to Ex.D.207, this witness admitted
that, there is no mention in Ex.D.217 that representatives
of M/s. Jaya Publication produced the books of accounts
before the special auditors. There isan observation in the
said order that, during the said special audit to show
receipts through cash and bank, no supporting documents
were made available. This witness has given an
explanation that, on account of the seizure of the
documents of M/s. Jaya Publication by D.V. & A.C., those
documents could not be made available before the special
auditors. He has also admitted that, in Ex.D.217, there is
an observation that, all payments made through cash are
not supported by any outside document or evidence and
that they are only supported by internally made vouchers
with payee's signature. Further, it is elicited from DW.88,
the returns as per Ex.D.218 to D.220 are all filed on
06.11.1998 whereas, the returns as per Ex.D.221 and
D.222 were filed on 17.03.1998 respectively. The returns
as per Ex.D.218 to D.222 were all prepared by DW.88. He
has also admitted that, Ex.D.224 to D.226do not bear the
date, seal and signature of the Income Tax Department.
Ex.D.228 the list of subscribers does not bear the seal and
signature of M/s. Jaya Publication. It does not indicate the
date on which the said list was prepared. The original
subscriptionapplications contained in Ex.D.230(1) to
Ex.D.230(17) volumes were not produced before the
Income Tax Authorities, but their xerox copies were
produced. This witness has explained in the cross-
examination that the originals were not produced for the
reason that they were taken away by D.V. & A.C. When
the observationsmade in para 72 of Ex.D.231 were put to
the witness and he was questioned as to whether M/s.
Jaya Publication and Namadhu MGR newspaper are of
different entity, DW.88 answered that, Namadhu MGR is a
newspaper published by Jaya Publications. The further
question put to the witness reads as follows:

"Question: At page 21 of the order Ex.D.223with
reference to the deposits mentioned in the said
page, the explanation by way of reply given by
M/s. Jaya Publications to the Assessing Officer
has been extracted as under:

The previous authorized representative
had explained that these are all transfer from
current account of M/s. Namadhu MGR as the
Assessee has been dealing with M/s. Jaya
Publications and M/s. Namadhu MGR as two
separate divisions. Scheme deposits are
collected by M/s. Namadhu MGR. Perhaps so the
Assessee's clerk is not well verse with in
accountancy, was not knowing the account to
which they are to be credited whether Namadhu
MGR or M/s. Jaya Publication, he might have
posted to UPL Account."

In view of the above reply given by the
Assessee how do you say that Namadhu MGR
news paper was only published and circulated
by M/s. Jaya Publications?

Ans: According to me M/s. Jaya Publications had
income from the sale of Namadhu MGR news
paper, income from agricultural operations and
rental income from properties owned by them.
Thereby the income was dealt under 3
divisions."

50.10) It is further elicited that as per the Ex.D.231,
the Assessing Officer finalized the original assessment
proceedings u/Sec. 144 of
Income Tax Act
. On 03.03.1998
on the basis of the material available on record and the
Commissioner of Income Tax Act (Appeals) set aside the
assessment order on 15.09.1998 and only thereafter, M/s.
Jaya Publication filed its return of income on 06.11.1998.
He has also admitted that the Registrar of Newspaper for
India will issue a certificate regarding the circulation of
newspapers. He has also admitted that, when the
assessing officer issued notice requiring M/s. Jaya
Publication to produce the original applications along with
the counter foils of deposit receipts and the concerned
registers, M/s. Jaya Publication did not produce those
documents, but they filed only copies and those copies
were accepted by the Assessing Officer.

50.11) Regarding the maintenance of the accounts
of M/s. Jaya Publication, the evidence of PW.201 C.K.R.K.
Vidyasagar, an officer of Canara Bank, Mylapore Branch is
relevant to be considered. In his examination-in-chief from
page 59 onwards, this witness has deposed that, the
Current A/c. No. 2047 of Jaya Publication was transferred
from Kellys Branch, Chennai to their Canara Bank at
Mylapore Branch on 26.09.1990. In the application the
address of the organization was mentioned as No.36, Poes
Garden,Chennai-86. The copy of the application sent to
their bank from Kellys Branch viz., Ex.P.1900 discloses
that the account opening application was signed by A-1
and A-2 and one Dinakara and Tivakaran, the partners.
While transferring the account, the bank obtained a fresh
letter from the partners which is signed by A-1 and A-2 as
per Ex.P.1901. The statement of the bank account ledger
of Jaya Publication is marked through this witness as
Ex.P.1903. This statement pertains to the period from
01.07.1991 to 11.09.1996. As per this statement, as on
1.7.1991, the balance in his Current A/c. was
Rs.7,83,860.97 and the balance as on 30.04.1996 was
Rs.20,79,885.12. This witness has deposed in detail about
the remittance made to this account on several occasions
exceeding Rs.50,000/- at a time and has further deposed
that from Namadhu MGR Current A/c. No. 1952, various
amounts were transferred on different dates to this
account No.2047 and from the Current A/c. No. 2018 held
by A-1, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was transferred to this
account on 5.5.1993 and from the A/c. No.2196 of A-2, a
sum of Rs.14,250/- was transferred to this account on
4.5.1993. Likewise, from the account of Sasi Enterprises
(Current A/c. No. 2061) a sum of Rs.6 lakhs on
29.10.1993, Rs. 1 lakh on 5.11.93 were transferred to
Current A/c. No. 2047. A sum of Rs.6 lakhs was
transferred from Vinod Video (A/c. No.2133) to the
account of Jaya Publication on 14.11.1994 and further,a
sum of 10 lakhs from another account on 27.5.1992, a
sum of Rs.10 lakhs, Rs. 3 lakhs and Rs.1 lakh on
29.05.1992; Rs.1 lakh on 1.6.92, Rs.3,61,759.90 on
10.11.92, Rs.1.2 lakh on 5.2.93, Rs. 1,29,448.10 on
4.6.1993, Rs.2,45,242.50 on 7.10.1993 were credited to
Current A/c. No. 2047.

50.12) The interest from fixed deposit amount was
also credited to this account No.2047 on different dates
and PW.201 has given the details thereof in page No.62 of
his deposition. This witness has also spoken about the
withdrawal of the amount from A/c. No.2047 on various
dates and has also stated that on 5.8.97, 21.10.92,
21.3.95 and 17.7.95 and 13.3.96 a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs, 3
lakhs, 5 lakhs, 4 lakhs, 2 lakhs and Rs.2 lakhs have been
deducted through cheques in the name of A-1. Further,
this witness has stated that on 30.3.1995, from the A/c.
No.2047 a sum of Rs.75 lakhs was issued through a
cheque in the name of Canfin Homes and was deducted.
This witness has also furnished the date of transfer of
amounts to the S.B. A/c. of A-2 (S.B. A/c. No.23218 and
Current A/c. No. 2196) and also the details of the amounts
given through cheques for purchasing demand drafts are
also narrated in detail in his evidence. What is significant
to be noted is that, nowhere in his evidence PW. 201 has
stated that a sum of Rs.14,10,35,000/- collected by way of
the deposit under the alleged scheme by A-1 and A-2
havebeen credited to the bank account of Jaya
Publications. More importantly, there is not even a remote
suggestion to this witness that the deposit amount is
credited to the bank account of Jaya Publication. In the
above context, it is also pertinent to note that, PW.201 has
stated in his evidence that A-2 N.Sasikala started a new
A/c. No. 2277 as Proprietor of a Company by name Metal
King Company. In this account, amount was remitted by
cash on different dates. Apart from the said remittance in
cash, different amounts were transferred to this account
on different dates. The details of which are stated in page
79 of his examination-in-chief. It is important to note that
large sum of money is seen to have been transferred from
the Current A/c. No. 1952 of Namadhu MGR to the account
of Metal King Company on different dates falsifying the
contention of the accused that the deposits collected from
the subscribers of Namadhu MGR was utilized for purchase
of immovable properties. These transactions on the other
hand fortify the case of the prosecution that the
unaccounted and undisclosed funds credited into the
accounts of Namadhu MGR were diverted to the accounts
of Jaya Publications, Sasi Enterprises, Vinod Video, Metal
King and various other firms and companies, wherein, A-2
to A-4 were either the Directors or the Partners at the
relevant point of time.

50.13) The transaction spoken by PW.201 are
inconsistent with the case pleaded by A-1 and A-2, on the
contrary, these transactions reinforce / strengthen the
case of the prosecution that the bank accounts maintained
by M/s. Jaya Publication does not reflect the credit of the
deposits of Rs.14,10,35,000/- as claimed by A-1 and A-2.

50.14) What emerges from the above evidence is
that, the story of the scheme deposit canvassed by the
accused has taken birth only after filing of the Charge
Sheet. There is not even a stray evidence to suggest that
the said deposit scheme was in circulation any time before
the registration of the criminal case against the accused.
There is nothing in the entire evidence indicating that the
accused had declared the said deposit before the Income
Tax Authorities any time during the check period. As
already narrated above, the existence of the said scheme
was brought to light only in the year 1998 in the returns
filed on behalf of the said firms. It is only after filing of the
Charge Sheet, the accused appear to have master minded
the above defence with the active connivance of DW.88,
who claims to be the Chartered Accountant of the accused
with a view to create evidence in a bid to offer an
explanation for the huge amount of unaccounted money
found with A-1. But, unfortunately, the circumstances
brought out in the cross-examination of DW.88completely
expose the falsity of the defence. First and foremost, it is
important to note that DW.88 is totally incompetent to
speak about the aforesaid scheme. According to him, he
was one of the partners of M/s. Nataraj Associates from
1998-2004. Though he claims that he was attached to
M/s. S. Venkatram and Company and in that capacity he
has handled the accounts of M/s. Jaya Publications and
M/s. Sasi Enterprises, yet, in para 44 of the cross-
examination he has unequivocally admitted that until 1998
neither M/s. Jaya Publications nor M/s. Sasi Enterprises
had filed any returns in respect of the financial affairs of
the said firms. In Ex.D.231, in unmistakable terms it is
noted that till February 1998, M/s. Rajsekhar & Co., C.A.s
were appointed as auditors of Jaya Publications. Under the
said circumstances, the claim of DW.88 that he had
handled the accounts of M/s. Jaya Publications and M/s.
Sasi Enterprises falls to the ground.

50.15) As already narrated above, the accused have
not produced any material before the Court to show that
Dr. Namadhu MGR had floated the deposit scheme inviting
subscription from the general public. As a matter of fact,
even a copy of the said Namadhu MGR of the relevant
period is not produced before the Court which would have
helped the Court in ascertaining whether the said News
Paper is merely an official news letter of AIADMK Party or
is meant forgeneral consumption and is sold for Re.1/- as
contended by the accused. It is a cardinal rule of evidence
that, best evidence in the possession of the party should
be produced before the Court. In the instant case, DW.88
has admitted that Namadhu MGR News Paper is registered
with the Registrar of Press Trust of India and it has
circulation crossing more than 70,000/-. If so, the
certificate of registration and the Register of the
subscribers would have been the best piece of evidence to
support the claim of the accused.

50.16) In appreciating the claim/ defence of the
accused, it is pertinent to note that M/s. Jaya Publication
was an assessee of Income Tax with Central Circle (II) 2,
Chennai from the year 1991. According to DW.88, earlier
to that the said firm was an Income Tax assessee with
different circle of Income Tax. It is admitted by DW.88
that the Income Tax returns for the assessment year
1991-92 to 1993-94 were filed by M/s.Jaya Publications
only on 06.11.1998 and the Income Tax returns for the
assessment years 1994-95, 96-97 on 17.03.1999.
Undisputedly, much before the said date, the F.I.R. was
registered against A-1 and the Charge Sheet came to be
filed against the accused as back as on 04.10.1997. It is
the evidence of DW.88 that, when the assessee was
brought into Central Circle-II (2), Chennai, the Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax appointed one P.B.
Vijayaraghavan, the CharteredAccountant as the Special
Auditor for auditing the accounts of M/s. Jaya Publications
for the assessment year 1994-95. In the chief-
examination, DW.88 has stated thus:

"During the said audit I had personally
producedthe books of accounts of the assessee
before the said special auditors. The said special
auditors gave report in prescribed forms, on
25.09.1998. After seeing the said report I say
that the cash book, bank book, journal register,
stock register, general ledger, records for
agricultural income viz., cash book, journal
register, general ledger were produced before the
said auditors and they were verified by them. In
the records produced by Income Tax Authorities
before this Court, in Volume No.8 at pages 87 to
111 the special auditors report dt. 25.09.1998 is
found. It is Ex.D.217. The said special auditors
have certified in form No.6-B that proper books of
accounts have been kept by the assessee. In the
said special audit report there is mention about
the receipt of agricultural income by the
assessee."

50.17) As against the above evidence, the consistent
plea taken up by the accused before this Court is that, all
the documents pertaining to Jaya Publications including the
accounts books, registers etc., were seized by the D.V. &
A.C. and hence they were handicapped in putting forward
their defence. But DW.88 had the temerity to depose on
oath, contrary to the stand of the accused, that during the
special audit he personally produced the books of accounts.
He is the star witness of the accused, but has turned out
tobe an utter lier and false witness who has no regard for
truth. He has changed his version at every stage of the
proceedings. Even otherwise, the circumstances brought
out in the evidence undoubtedly point out that he is
propped up only to create a false defence for the accused.
50.18) In this context, it may be relevant to note
that, during the pendency of the proceedings before this
Court, A-2 filed an application u/Sec. 207 and 243(2)

Cr.P.C
. R/w. Rule 2 Chapter XIV of Karnataka Criminal
Rules of Practice seeking certified copies of the documents
viz., the Day Book, Attendance Register, Journal Register,
Daily Collections, Advertisement Registers, In and Out
Register, Postal Fee Paid and Statement of accounts file
relating to account of Namadhu MGR which were stated to
have been seized and also the Bank documents which were
stated to have been seized under search list No.129126 to
425868, knowing fully well that those documents were not
in existence at all. In the said petition, it is unequivocally
stated that the documents seized during the course of
investigation have not been marked by the prosecution,
apparently as they would not support the case of the
accused. Similarly, A-1 had also filed I.A.No.722 u/Sec.
207 of
Cr.P.C
. seeking leave to peruse the records
forwarded by the prosecution which were unmarked during
the course of leading evidence by theprosecution. In the
said application, it is specifically stated that the documents
lying in the Court were forwarded u/Sec. 173(5) of the
Code and the A-1 is entitled to perusal of those documents.

50.19) On hearing the parties, the above applications
were dismissed by my Predecessor. The accused carried
the matter before the Hon'ble High Court in Crl. Petition
No.1840/2012 and the Hon'ble High Court also having
dismissed the said petition, the accused approached
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Crl. Appeal No. 1497 and
1498 of 2012 and by order dt. 28.09.2012, permitted the
inspection of the documents by the accused. These facts
clearly establish that the documents relating to Namadhu
MGR were seized during the investigation and were
produced before the Court. But, DW.88 has gone to the
extent of stating on oath that, he personally produced all
the above documents and the account books before the
Special Auditor.

50.20) When the witness was confronted with the
observation made in Ex.D.217 that there is no mention
therein about the production of the accounts before the
Special Auditor DW.88 answered that, "On account
ofseizure of the documents of M/s. Jaya Publication by
D.V. & A.C., those documents could not be made available
before the Special Auditors." This evidenceclinchingly
establishes that, when the Special Auditorswere appointed,
the accused did not produce any documents relating to the
financial affairs of M/s. Jaya Publications. I have already
reproduced the relevant portion of Ex.P.231, wherein the
Commissioner has also reiterated the fact that the
Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to produce the
primary documents such as the application forms of the
members, counter foils of the deposit receipt and the
collection of register and cash book. But the assessee
failed to furnish any evidence to substantiate the claim. All
these circumstances go to show that, neither before the
Special Auditors nor before the Assessing Officer the
primary documents were produced by the assessee. But
surprisingly, the accused have got summoned nine
volumes of original applications from the Income Tax
Department without explaining as to how these original
applications came to be produced before the Income Tax
Department.

50.21) Though the learned Counsel for the accused
has strenuously presented an argument based on the
above applications - Ex.D.230 series and the oral
testimony of 31 witnesses, the very fact that the original
applications came to be produced before the Court under
mysterious circumstances, the testimony of the witnesses
based on these applications is susceptible to doubt. Even
otherwise, a bare perusal of these applications indicate
that, these applications have been created just before the
examination of the witnesses somewhere in 2012 and
maneuvered to be produced before the Court. Even the
naked eye of a common ordinary man could find out that
the entire bulk of applications produced before this Court
are nothing but sheets of paper kept in sunlight or
exposed to smoke so as to give them an appearance of old
used papers, but the ink used on the said sheets for
writing the names and other details appears to be so fresh
and recent belying the very claim of the accused that the
said applications were obtained during the check period.
For ex. at page No. 15482 and 15484 of the records, the
papers are not evenly turned brown and in one of the
sheets, the ink is smudged on the rear side of the paper
making it evident that, the writing therein is made recently
after using the above trick. Likewise, at page 15312 and
15314 the portion of the signature extending on the white
patches of the paper looks fresh and recent, whereas the
writing on the other portions thereof looks different. As
already brought out from the mouth of the witnesses, the
receipt numbers are not mentioned in any of these
application forms, nor have the accused produced the
counter-foils of the receipts to corroborate the testimony
of the above witnesses that on submission of the said
applications, they were enrolled as the subscribers of the
newsletter. The application forms also do not contain any
term to the effect that the subscribers would be supplied
with particular number of copies of Namadhu MGR. Except
the interestedtestimony of the witness, nothing is
produced before the Court to show that the firm had
agreed for supply free copy of newspaper for multiples of
Rs.3,000/- as sought to be contended. All these
circumstances therefore create suspicion about the
genuineness of the claim put forth by the accused.

50.22) It is also pertinent to note, that if original
applications were available with the firm from the
commencement of the scheme, there is no reason for the
auditor to offer an explanation that the originals were lost.
Going by the statement made by the witnesses, that in
terms of the aforesaid scheme, they were entitled to the
free supply of Namadhu MGR, the firm ought to have
maintained Register of the subscribers and also the
records for having dispatched the copies to the subscribers
either by post or through some other mode and all these
documents could have been produced before the Income
Tax Authorities at the earliest point of time. Unfortunately,
till date, neither the Register of subscribers nor any other
material in proof of the supply of the copies to the
subscribers is produced before this Court. The evidence of
the witnesses that they have been receiving 5 to 6 copies
of the newsletter appears to be incredulous. It is not
known why a reader requires 5 or 6 copies of the same
newsletter. It also does not stand to reason as to why a
person would deposit Rs.12,000/- to Rs.18,000/- inrespect
of a newsletter the cost of which was only Re.1/-when the
deposit alleged to have been made by them would have
fetched three times of the cost of the said news letter.

50.23) Finally, in appreciating the evidence of the
above witnesses, it should also be noted that the entire
bunch of witnesses examined by the accused in support of
the alleged claim are the ardent party workers, easily
procurable witnesses who are vitally interested in the
outcome of the trial and therefore, their evidence is bound
to be interested and partisan. Even otherwise, the
circumstances discussed above give a clear indication that
these witnesses are tutored and interested witnesses.
There is absolutely no corroboration to the oral testimony
of these witnesses. Therefore, on over all consideration of
all the above facts and circumstances and in view of my
definite finding that the application forms relied on by the
accused at Ex.D.230 series are got up and fabricated to
bolster up the false claim laid by the accused, I am not
inclined to accept the claim set up by the accused in this
regard.

The learned Sessions Judge at paragraph 51 of the
judgment has dealt with the Agricultural Income of Jaya
Publications. It was claimed that A-1 and A-2 as Partners
of Jaya Publications derived agricultural income totaling to
Rs.60,45,665/- as per the break up figure given in the
chart and therefore, the said amount is required to be
taken into account while computing the resources available
with A-1 for acquisition of properties and the pecuniary
resources.

The learned Sessions Judge at paragraph 51.3 of the
judgment has observed that the Commissioner of Income
Tax has held in the above order that the appellant viz.,
M/s. Jaya Publications is treated as having received
agricultural income of Rs.8,01,961/- for the assessment
year 1991-92, Rs.9,31,000/- for the assessment year
1992-93, Rs.7,43,500/- for the assessment year 1993-94.
The learned Sessions Judge has observed that it needs to
be noted that, Exs.D.218, 219, 220 were filed on
06.11.1998 and Exs.D.221 and D.222 were filed on
17.03.1998. In the above acknowledgments, the net
agricultural income for the assessment year 1991-92 to
1994-95 is shown as Rs.4,54,500/-, Rs.9,31,000/-,
Rs.7,43,500/- and Rs.21,68,500/-respectively and for
assessment year 1995-96, the agricultural income is
shown as NIL.

51.6) In proof of the alleged lease of the land, the
accused have relied on the certificate issued by the Dy.
Inspector General of Registration, confirming the sale of
stamp paper in favour of Vasudevan. Though the said
certificate is marked as Ex.D.235, the said certificate does
not establish either the grant of lease, terms and conditions
thereof, the period for which the lease has been taken by
the accused. In the absence of any documents to show that
T.S.R. Vasudevan is the owner of agricultural land
measuring 65.57 acres of land, solely on the basis of
certificate of Inspector General of Registration, it cannot be
concluded that he had leased out the lands to M/s. Jaya
Publications. No independent witness is examined to prove
the factum of cultivation and the nature of crops grown in
the land and yield fetched therefrom. When the accused
have not produced any acceptable evidence to show that
M/s.Jaya Publication had taken the agricultural land on
lease and have been carrying on agricultural operations,
merely on the basis of the Income Tax Returns brought
about after filing of the Charge Sheet, the claim cannot be
accepted.

The learned Sessions Judge at paragraph 52 of the
judgment has dealt with Sales Job Work carried out by Jaya
Publications during the check period. A-1 and A-2 claimed
that a total sum of Rs.4,19,96,605.60 was collected
towards the sales job work and produced the profit and loss
account statement marked as Exs.D.224, D.225 and D.226.
Exs.D.224, D.225 and D.226 do not bear the signature of
either A-1 or A-2 and also the date. The Xerox copies
produced bear the imprint of the signature of G.Natarajan,
the Chartered Accountant who is not examined before the
Court. Therefore, no reliance could be placed on the Profit
and Loss Account statement.

The trial Court at paragraph 53 of the judgment has
discussed about the rental income of the accused. The
learned trial Judge has rejected the claim of A-1 and A-2 at
Rs.45,30,642/- from rental income from the properties and
accepted the rental income calculated by the prosecuting
agency. Besides, the claim of accused in a sum of Rs.6
lakhs towards rental income from the hire of machinery
was also negatived as the statement of Profit and Loss
Account for the year ended 31.03.1995 and 1996 marked
at Exs.D.226 and D.225 was proved to be got up and
fabricated document.
The learned Sessions Judge at paragraph 55 deals
with Sasi Enterprises.
It is not in dispute that A-1 and A-2 are the partners
of Sasi Enterprises, a Partnership Firm which owns (i)
Shop No.14, Ground Floor at No.602, Anna Salai, Chennai,
(ii) Door No.14, Khadar Nawaz Khan Road,
Nungambukkam, (item Nos.8, 9 of Annexure-I), (iii)
Vacant site at Blake H.D.Road, Tanjaore, (iv) Vacant site
in Ward No.6 in Mahar Nombu, Chavadi in (item No.13 and
14 at Annexure-I), (v) Dry land measuring 3.23 acres at
S.No.402-2 of Sundarakottai Village, Mannargudi Taluk,
Tanjore district (item No.16 of Annexure-I). According to
the accused, during thecheck period, M/s. Sasi Enterprises
earned a total income of Rs.95,92,776/-.

55.1) It is the submission of the learned Counsel
that, by way of rental income, the firm Sasi Enterprises
has received an aggregate of Rs.12,60,800/-, but the D.V.
& A.C. has taken into account only Rs.6,15,900/- vide
item Nos.59, 61 and 62 of Annexure-III and hence, a
difference of Rs.6,64,900/- is to be included under this
head.
The trial Court relied on
Section 269(SS)
of Income
Tax Act since the loan amount or deposits are not paid by
way of Bank Drafts or account-payee cheques doubting
the genuineness of the statement of profit and loss
accounts presented to the Income Tax Authorities.
Beneficiary of the loan was not examined. Absence of
registration of Deed of Lease and not believing the
statement made by the Tahsildar, even the author of
Housing and Real Estate Development Private Limited was
not examined. Consequently, there is no worthwhile
evidence before the Court to show that Sasi Enterprises
has derived income of Rs.90,92,766/- during check period.

The learned Sessions Judge at paragraph-60 has
observed that A-2 sought to include business income from
Metal King and Vinod Video Vision amounting to
Rs.38,76,286/- and Rs.94,36,682/-respectively. But A-2
has not produced any proof of the said income either by
examining any independent witness or by producing any
book of account or stock register maintained by the
concern in the regular course of business. It is also an
admitted fact that, no returns have been filed by A-2
declaring any income from this business. As a result, this
claim also cannot be considered.

The learned Sessions Judge at paragraph-61 has
observed that "once aplea is taken that a person has
advanced any amount; it is to be seen whether that
person has the capacity to do so. Mere statement in that
regard is not acceptable." Undoubtedly, in a case of this
nature, the onus rests on the accused to show that either
Meadow Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd., or Riverway Agro Products
Pvt. Ltd. had ample source to advance loans to the
accused because, as held in the above case, accused have
special knowledge about how a particular asset was
acquired or income therein was earned. In the instant
case, the resources available with the above companies
and their capacity to advance loans will be discussed later.
For the present, suffice it to note that the accused have
not produced any acceptable evidence in proof of the
availment of the loan from the above Companies. As a
result, this claim is also liable to be rejected.

The learned Sessions Judge at paragraph 62 of the
judgment has dealt with Super Duper TV and income of
A3.
The Investigating Agency has omitted to include
income earned by A-3 to the tune of Rs.1.10 crore,
initially, carried on as Proprietor of Super Duper TV and
later incorporated as Super Duper TV Private Limited. The
Company had introduced a deposit scheme, wherein cable
operators deposited Rs.5,000/- or multiples and in this
process, the Company received scheme deposit money of
Rs.1,06,10,000/-. The receipts were disclosed to the
Income Tax Authorities and the Commissioner of Appeals
has accepted the same as valid and proper. The Company
has also received periodical lease rent of Rs.1,500/- per
month for other equipments which were given on hire from
time to time. Thus, an amount of Rs.11,18,500/- was
collected during the check period which was also disclosed
to the Income Tax Authorities and accepted by them after
scrutiny. It is the further submission of A-3 that the
Company Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd., has deposited a sum
of Rs.15,75,800/- with SIDCO for allotment of a shed,
however no shed or plot was allotted by SIDCO.

DW.85 identified the lease agreements executed by
the subscribers in favour of the Company which came to
be marked as Ex.D.75, D.78, D.82, D.84, D.89, D.96,
D.100, D.113 and D.121 and further deposed that, there
were more than 2300 subscribers who had paid Rs.5,000/-
as non-refundable entrance fee and had executed separate
agreements in favour of M/s. Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd.,
agreeing to pay the hire charges at the rate of Rs.1,500/-
per month. DW.85 also identified 22 receipt books marked
as Ex.P.2341 series and stated that the said entrance fee
was non-refundable.

62.9) Recitals in Ex.D.182, the assessment order
relating to the A/Y. 1995-96 reveals that neither Super
Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd., nor A-2 or A-3 filed any returns in
respect of the income derived by them from this business
until filing of the Charge Sheet. Nonetheless, the
assessment orders passed by the Income Tax Authorities
at Ex.D.182 and Ex.D.184 indicate that, belated returns
were filed. Though it is stated in the assessment order dt.
30.03.2000 (Ex.D.182) that afterissuance of the notice
u/Sec. 142(1), the assessee viz., M/s. Super Duper T.V.
Pvt. Ltd., filed a return admitting a loss of Rs.1,99,210/- it
is recited in the said order that, during the assessment
year 1996-97, the assessee was in receipt of a sum of
Rs.47.80 lakhs under the cable scheme from 956 persons
at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per each cable operator and out
of this, a sum of Rs.11.4 lakhs seem to have been
received by cheque / D.D. from 228 persons and the
balance of Rs.36.40 lakhs has been credited in the
assessee's bank account as receipt from 728 persons.
Though these assessment orders have come into existence
subsequent to the initiation of the criminal proceedings
against the accused, yet, in view of the other documentary
evidence brought on record by the accused, there is
sufficient material to hold that, during the year 1995-96,
the A-2 and A-3 had received Rs.47.80 lakhs under the
cable scheme. Likewise, in the assessment order
Ex.D.183, it is stated that, during the previous year i.e.,
1994-95,the assessee admitted the cable scheme receipts
to the tune of Rs.62,15,100/- but during the enquiry,
summons were not served to 38 subscribers and 13
persons who were summoned by the assessing officer
having denied the payment of the amounts to the
Company, it is observed that a sum of Rs.3,85,000/-was
treated as unexplained cash credits. Thus, from the
material produced before the Court, A-3 has shown that
from 1994-96, from the business of Super Duper T.V., A-
.3 had collected Rs.47,80,000 + Rs.62,15,100 =
Rs.1,09,95,100 - Rs.3,87,000= Rs.1,06,10,100.00.

62.11) There is nothing on record to show that A-3
had any other income other than the scheme deposits
amounting to Rs.1,06,10,100.00. And the hire charges
which are declared by him before the Income Tax
Authorities amounting to Rs.11,18,500/-. Though the
returns are filed by A-3 much after the initiation of the
criminal proceedings, yet, as already noted above, DW.85
in the cross-examination has unequivocally stated that
Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd., carried on the cable TV
business only for six months and thereafter the said
business was stopped. Even otherwise,
Sec.3
of the Cable
Television Networks (Regulation Act 1995) provides that
no person shall operate a cable television network unless
he is registered as a cable operator under this Act. The
said Act came into force on 25.03.1995 and much before
the promulgation of the said Act, Cable Television Network
Rules 1994 had come into force w.e.f. 29.09.1994 which
required to collect only refundable security deposits. Under
thesaid circumstance, even though A-3 has produced the
receipt books and the counterfoils of the pay-in-slips to
show that, the amount of Rs.5,000/- collected from large
number of subscribers were credited to A/c. No.1152 and
were available with A-3, yet, there is nothing on record to
show as to how the investment was made by A-3 for the
purchase of the equipments supplied by him to the various
subscribers as agreed as per Ex.D.156(1) series. Certainly,
the cost of these equipments would be much more than
the deposit of Rs.5,000/- collected by him from the
subscribers. If the value of the equipments and
accessories were less than Rs.5,000/- no prudent
businessman would subscribe to such a scheme. That itself
indicates that, A-3 had made huge investments for
purchase of the equipments supplied to the subscribers
and therefore, it cannot be said that the entire amount of
Rs.1,06,10,100.00 collected by him from the subscribers
was available with him for purchase of immovable
properties. Even otherwise, A-3 himself has admitted in his
returns referred above that the business income for the
assessment year 1996-97 was NIL. Under the said
circumstance, the contention of A-3 that, the funds
amounting to Rs.1,06,10,100.00 was available with him
cannot be accepted.

The learned Sessions Judge at paragraph 63 of the
judgment has dealt with M/s.Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd.

63.8) Though the appeal preferred by M/s Anjineya
Printers Pvt., Ltd., before the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Chennai against the above Order, Ex. D-278
came to be allowed by a cryptic Order, dt. 27.12.2004,
even before this court, the accused have not produced
either the account books maintained in the regular course
of business or any other reliable material to show that
there was genuine purchasetransactions between M/s.
Anjaneya Printers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Jaya Publications to
the tune of Rs.35 lakh as contended by A-3. Except the so
called confirmation letter, accused have not been able to
show from the books of the firm that M/s.Jaya Publications
had shown in its returns the advance of Rs.35 lakhs to M/s
Anjaneya Printers Pvt., Ltd., on different dates. There is
not even a scrap of paper to prove either the borrowal of
the funds or the income earned from the business by the
firm as contended by A-3. The transaction put forward by
A-3 is opposed to
Sec.269 (SS)
of I.T. Act. There is also
no evidence to show that the firm had turned out printing
works during the relevant year. There is no proof
regarding the initial capital invested by the partners.
Except the computerized statement of accounts, there is
nothing on record to show that orders were received and
printing work was turned out by the firm as contended.
The computerized statement of account is neither
admissible in law nor does it prove the alleged income of
the firm. As a result, even the claim set up by the accused
in this regard is also liable to be dismissed.

The learned Sessions Judge from paragraph 65 to
paragraphs 72 of the judgment deals with expenditure
incurred during the check period.

72.47) Now coming to the expenses incurred by A-1
for the marriage arrangement is concerned, it is pertinent
to note that, DW.1 has asserted that he spent Rs. 97 lakhs
for the marriage expenses. Before the Income Tax
Authorities, at one point of time, it was decided that A-1
had incurred the expenses to the tune of Rs. 94 lakhs. The
party workers of AIADMK have come before the Court to
say that they spent Rs. 60lakhs for the façade and lakhs of
rupees for the decoration and lorry loads of rice was
procured to serve lunch for more than 30,000 party
workers. The prosecution has come up with the case that,
a sum of Rs.6,45,04,222/- was spent for the marriage, out
of which, Rs.5,21,23,532/- were spent for putting up
Pandals. Though the said amount looks exorbitant, but
having regard to the accommodation provided to more
than 40,000 to 50,000 people at two places and special
arrangements made for the stage and decoration, the said
amount does not appear to be unreasonable. If the claim
of the party workers that they spent rupees sixty lakhs
only for the façade is believed, then, having regard to the
magnitude of the event, at least three times of the said
amount could be estimated for putting up the Pandals.
Further, a minimum of Rs.40 lakhs to Rs. 50 lakhs might
have been spent on food on the date of marriage as well
as for the reception and for breakfast. It has come in
evidence that numbers of cooks were employed and were
paid wages, elaborate sitting arrangements were made at
the venue, posh accommodation was arranged for the
VIPs, elephants were procured from Kerala, crackers were
burst and the entire venue was illuminated with lights,
which would certainly entail huge expenses. That apart, it
is established in evidence that, huge amount was spent
towards the printing of invitation, publication of thanks in
the dailies, tamboolam and valuable presents given tothe
guests, all of which would certainly entail expenses of
more than 3 crores of rupees even by modest and
conservative estimation. Therefore, taking into
consideration all the above facts and circumstances, a sum
of Rs.3 crores is taken as the expenses incurred by A-1
towards the arrangement for the marriage of A-3.

72.48) Thus, in the light of the above discussion, my
finding on the total expenditure incurred by the accused
during the check period is as under:
Expenditure as per
Annexure-IV - Rs.11,56,56,833.41

Less:

Item No.148 - Rs. 7,50,000.00
Item No.226 - Rs.3,45,04,222.00
------------------------
Total - Rs.8,49,06,833.00
==============

73. RE: ASSETS:

The nature and extent of the assets and pecuniary
resources found in possession of the accused during the
check period are detailed in Annexure-II. It is marked as
Ex.P.2338. It contains a list of 306 items.
Learned Spl. P.P. has sought to delete item Nos.1 to
17 of Annexure-II on the ground that these were acquired
by the accused prior to the check period.

For convenient discussion of the issues involved in
the case, these assets are categorized under the following
heads.

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

I Immovableproperties(considerationc 1 to 173, 175, 292,297, 301, 22,83,99,174.70
ost ofregistration) 302(i),305(Excluding item
Nos.24, 31, 33, 64,66,127,
145,150,159)
II Cash paid over & abovesale 24, 31, 33, 64, 66,127, 145, 2,53,80,619.00
consideration 150, 159

III New or additional construction of 174, 176-192, 301, 28,17,40,430.00
buildings 302(ii)

IV Gold and DiamondJewellery 284-290, 295 5,53,02,334.75

V Silver wares 291 48,80,800

VI F.Ds and shares 258-277, 298, 303,306 3,42,62,728.00
VII Cash balance in bank accounts 193-229, 296, 300, 97,47,751.32
VIII Vehicles 230-257, 299 1,29,94,033.05

IX Machinery 293, 294 2,24,11,000.00

X Footwear 278 2,00,902.45

XI Sarees 279-281 92,44,290.00

XII Wrist watches 282-283 15,90,350.00

73.1)
IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES ACQUIRED DURING
THE CHECK PERIOD BETWEEN 1.7.1991 AND
30.04.1996.

Item Date of Witnesses
No. Description of Execution/ reg. Total cost Ex.
of Rs. in proof
property & Purchaser thedeed/agree of the
extent of Sale transacti
(Exs.) on

18 One Ground and Doc.No.424/91 10,20,371 PW.1
1407 Sq. Ft. of Dt.24.7.91 PW.2
land with building Ex.P- (Sub-
in R.S.No.1567/1 J.Jayalalitha 1(Original) Reg)
of Mylapore Ex.P-2 (copy) PW126
village.
Ex.P.79
19 Land and buildingto 14.08.1991 6,78,000 PW138
Tmt.N.
theextentof25035Sq. Doc.No.1410/9 PW 99
Sasikala
Ft. inS.No.93, 94, and 1 dt.22.8.91
95 of Mannargadi
Village Haridranadhi,
West Street.

20 Plot No. (S)S-7 M/sJaya 22.9.1991 15,05,428 PW.3
TiruVika.Industrial Publications, rep.
TiruVika.Industrial Publications, rep. Doc.No. (Sub-
Estate4664.6Sq.ft. ByJ.Jayalalitha 3285/91 Reg)
with building &N.Sasikala Dt. 6.9.91
Ex.P-4
(Original)
Ex.P-5 (copy)

21 Land & Bldig at Doc.no.92/1992 2,98,144 PW.137,
New Door No.14, dt.19.2.92 163, 166
Kadhar Nawaz
Khan Rd,
Nungambakkam Ex.P.769, 770,
Block 935,
12, 1513,1514
87/12000 SasiEnterprises
undivided share
of land in 11
ground 1736 Sq.
Ft. & 523 Sq Ft.
bldg in RS.No.58
& New
RS.No.58/5.

22 Land and building Doc.No.722/92 5,57,761 PW.163,
AtDoorNo.16, dt. 25.3.92
Ippababi(Radhika Ex.P.935,
Nagar)AnjaiahGarden, 1513,
Boosareddy gudaroad, 1514
N.
Secunderabad
Sasikala
Contonment,S.No.49
and 50landextent
222.92Sq.mt.Built
uparea2200 Sq. Ft.

23 TANSI Foundry -Sy. 2.6.1992 2,13,68,152 PW.3
Nos. 86, 87,88Part, Doc.
(Sub-
89Part,91 Part, 92 No. 2237/92
Part,93Partin Block Dt. 29.5.92 Reg)
No. 5 of Alandur, M/sJayaPublicati Ex.P-6 PW.126
Adayar, Sydapet ons, rep. (original)
12,462.172Sq. byN.Sasikala & P-7 copy
Mtrs (55 Grounds
and 2143 Sq.ft.)
with building

25 TANSI(Enamelled M/s Sasi 30.9.1992 90,17,089 PW.3
wires)Land and Enterprises, rep. Doc.No.3780/92
buildingatM/sTiru (Sub-
ByN.Sasikala Dt. 7.10.92
Ka.IndustrialEstate, Ex. P-8 Reg)
Guindy0.63acres of
land and495 sq. ft. in
RCCRoof 1155 Sq. Ft.
InACCSheetRoof
inS.No.89ofAlandur
Village, Hamlet of
Adyar,BlockNo.12
(TANSI Enamalled
wires)

26 Land and building 22.1.1993 49,02,105 PW.4
to the extent of 1
M/s Sasi Doc.No. PW159
Ground&1475
Sq.ftinvillageDoor Enterprisesrep. 72/1993 (Sub-
No.18,EastAbirama- ByN.Sasikala Dt. 27.1.'93 Reg)
puram,IIIStreet. Ex.P-23
(5529.31 Sq. ft.) (Original)
Bldg., consisting of
basement, Ground,
Mezzanine and 1st floor
27 Sy. No. 366/4 & M/s 24.5.1993 1,39,562 PW.9
366/1 situate in Signora Doc.No. 450/93 (Sub-
Cheyyur village Business Reg)
measuring 4.90
acres Enterpri Ex. P-36
ses Pvt., Ltd.

28 Agrl. land at Sy. M/s 26.6.1993 1,00,830 PW.13
No. 365/3 situate Signora Doc.No. 593/93 PW.9
in Cheyyur Business (Sub-
village measuring Enterprises Pvt. Reg)
3.30
acres Ltd. Ex. P-37

29 Agrl. land at Sy. M/s. Signora
Business
Enterprises Pvt.,
. Ltd., 24.6.1993 50,495 PW.11
No. 365/1 situate Doc. PW.9
in Cheyyur No. 594/93
village measuring Ex. P-38
1.65
acres

M/s.
SignoraBusiness
Enterprises Pvt.,
30 Agrl. land at Sy. Ltd., 25.6.1993 66,485 PW.12
No. 365/2 situate Doc.No. 595/93 PW.9
in Cheyyur
village measuring
2.22
acres Ex. P-39

32 72/12000 share Sasi Ex.P.768 1,60,572 PW.136,
of 11 grounds Enterprises Doc.No.641/93 137
1736 Sq. Ft. in dt.28.7.93
R.S.No.58/5 @
14, Gems Court,
Kather Navaz
Khan Road,

34 Dry land situated in N. 28.10.93 37,410 PW.32
Velagapuram Sasikala Doc. No. PW.39
village measuring 1573/93 (Sub-
4 acres 41 cents Ex.P-83 Reg)

Dry land situated in 28.10.93 PW39
35 Velagapuram N. Sasikala Doc. No. 12,060 (Sub-
village measuring 1574/93 Reg)
1 acre 42 cents in PW.37
S.No.198/180 F3,
198/159 B. Ex. P-91
198/160 A,
198/159 D2,
198/158 B2,
198/157 B1 of
Velakkapuram
37 Dry land situate in N. 28.10.93 12,060 PW.39
S.No.198/180, Sasikala Doc. No. (Sub-
F11, 179A, 163A, 1576/93 Reg)
162A, 161B, PW.31
157B2, 156B, 155
B1 of Ex. P-92
Velagapuram
village measuring
1 acre 42 cents

38 Agrl. land Tmt. N. 28.10.93 37,385 PW.31
measuring 4 Sasikala Doc. No. PW.39
acres & 41 cents 1577/93 (Sub-
in Sy. No. Reg)
198/180 of
Velanapuram Ex. P-81

39 Dry land situate in N. 28.10.93 12,060 PW.31
S.No.198 of Sasikala Doc. No. PW.34
Velagapuram 1578/93
village measuring Ex. P-85 PW.39
1 acre 42 cents (Sub-
Reg)

40 Dry land situate in N. 28.10.93 12,060 PW.31
S.No.198 of Sasikala Doc. No. PW.35
Velagapuram 1579/93 PW.39
village measuring (Sub-
1 acre 42 cents Reg)
Ex. P-93

41 Dry land situate in N. 28.10.93 37,380.70 PW.31
S.No.198 of Sasikala Doc. No. PW.34
Velagapuram 1580/93 PW.39
village measuring (Sub-
4 acres 41 cents Ex. P-86 Reg)

42 Dry land situate in N. 28.10.93 37,385 PW.31,
S.No.198 of Sasikala Doc. No. 38
Velagapuram 1581/93 PW.39
village measuring (Sub-
4 acre 41 cents Reg)
Ex. P-90

43 Dry land situate in N. 28.10.93 37,385 PW.31,
S.No.198 of Sasikala Doc. No. PW.35
Velagapuram 1582/93 PW.39
village measuring (Sub-
4 acre 41 cents Ex. P-87 Reg)

44 Dry land situate in N. 28.10.93 12,060 PW.31
S.No.198 of Sasikala Doc. No. PW.42
Velagapuram 1583/93 PW.39
village measuring (Sub-
1 acre 42 cents Ex. P-94 Reg)

45 Dry land situate in N. 28.10.93 37,410 PW.31,
S.No.198 of Sasikala Doc. No. PW.36
Velagapuram 1584/93 PW.39
village measuring (Sub-
4 acre 41 cents Ex. P-88 Reg)
46 Dry land situate in 28.10.93 37,410 PW.37
S.No.198 of N. Sasikala Doc. No. PW.39
Velagapuram 1585/93 (Sub-
village measuring Reg)
4 acre 41 cents Ex. P-89

47 Dry land situate in 28.10.93 12,060 PW.31
S.No.198 of N. Sasikala Doc. No. PW.39
Velagapuram 1586/93 (Sub-
village measuring Reg)
1 acre 42 cents Ex. P-95

48 41 cents cents of Tmt. N. 28.10.93 3,498 PW.31
Doc.
dry land in Sy. Sasikala No.
No. 198 1587/9
of 3
Velagapuram
village Ex. P-82

M/s.Signora
Business
a Enterprises Pvt.
49 Agrl. Land tLtd. 6.12.1993 31,340 PW.9
No.63 in Cheyyur Doc. (Sub-
(B
' Block) village No.1591/93 Reg)
at Sy. No.364/12 8.12.93 PW.11
measuring0.63
acres
Ex.P.34
50 Land and building J. Doc.No.4806/9 9,60,520 PW.50
o Elavarasi
to the extent f 3 dt.31.12.93
F
t
4802 Sq. .
together with a
building (with Ex.P.134
groun
d and first
floor) in S.No.94,
o
plot No.7 f
Neelankarai
Village
51 1/5th un-divided AnjineyaPrinters 13.1.1994 3,19,230 PW.5
share in landed Pvt.Ltd.,(rep
ByitsChairman Doc. PW159
V.N.Sudhagaran
Bldg. at No. 2 No.
1 51/1994
Padma-nabha Dt. 17.1.94
Chetty Street, T
.
Ngr Ex. P-24

1 Ground & 1086
Sq.ft.

52 1/5th un-divided Anjineya 13.1.1994 3,19,230 PW.5
PrintersPvt.
Ltd.,rep.by
share in landed V.N.Sudhakaran Doc.No. PW159
bldg. (1 groud & 52/1994
1086 Sq.ft. ft. with Dt. 17.1.94
bldg., at Door No.
1 Padmanabha Ex. P-25
Cheetty Street, T.
Nagar
53 1/5th un-divided Anjineya 13.1.1994 3,19,230 PW.5
share in landed Printers Doc. No. PW159
bldg. (1 ground & Pvt. 52/1994
1086 Sq.ft. ft. with Ltd., Dt. 17.1.94
bldg., at Door No. rep. by Ex.P.26
1 Padmanabha V.N.
Cheetty Street, T. Sudhak
Nagar aran

54 1/5th un-divided Anjineya 13.1.1994 3,19,230 PW.5
share in landed Printers Doc. PW159
bldg. (1 groud & Pvt. No. 52/1994
1086 Sq.ft. ft. with Ltd., Dt. 17.1.94
bldg., at Door No. rep. by
21 Padmanabha V.N. Ex.P.27
Cheetty Street, T. Sudhak
Nagar aran
55 1/5th un-divided Anjineya 13.1.1994 3,19,230 PW.5
share in landed Printers Doc. PW159
bldg. (1 ground & Pvt. No. 52/1994
1086 Sq.ft. ft. with Ltd., Dt. 17.1.94
bldg., at Door No. rep. by
21 Padmanabha V.N. Ex. P-26
Cheetty Street, T. Sudhak
Nagar aran
56 1.50 acres in J. Vivek. Doc.No.494/94 44,210.00 PW139
S.No.392/1, 2 in Dt. 21.9.94 PW159
Siruthavur
Village Ex.771
57 10 acres and 41 J.Elavarasi Doc.No. 33/94 2,33,770 PW.51,
cents in RS dt.31.1.94 PW159
No.346/1B,
346/1C, Ex.P.137
348/2A2A,
348/2A2B
/
348/2A2C, 346/2,
344/1A, 347/2C,
342/1BC
,
342/1B4
,
342/1B5
, 345/1,
346/1K, 349/2B,
351/1B3
, 348/3A,
348/3C, 380,
345/1, 345/1A,
346/11
, 349/2A,
349/4C3
,
350/2A1
,
351/1B2
, 344/1,
346/1D, 346/1E,
346/2, 379/2,
346/2A, 350/2A2,
344/1B, 348/3B,
348/2
B
58 Agrl. Land at Tmt. J. 31,1,1994 1,03,360 PW.14
Sy.No.364/8, Elavarasi Doc. No. PW.9
364/9 of Cheyyur 111/94 (Sub-
village measuring 1.2.94 Reg)
2.02 acres Ex.P.35

59 54centsofdryland Doc.No.112/94 20,550 PW.8,
inS.No.364 of Cheyyur dt.1.2.94 PW.9
Village J.Elavarasi Ex.P.33

60 11 acres 83 cents 19.1.1994
344/1,2,402/4, Ex. P-122
401/1, 335/1in 2,33,770 PW.46,
Siruthavoor
village. VN
Sudhakaran
61 11acresand Doc.no.40/94 2,27,026 PW.51,
28centsS.No.42/2 Dt.8.2.94 PW159
in Karungulipallam Ex.P.138
andS.No.383to
386and393inSiruthavu J. Elavarasi
r village

10 acres 86 cents Doc.no.41/94
62 InS.No.392/1,391,392 dt.8.2.94 2,11,325 PW.46,
,380,381/3, Ex.P.123 PW159
405/3,393,398,
406,399,400,406inSirut
havoorVillage.
10.78 acres Doc.no.42/94
Tmt.
dt.8.2.94 PW.51,
J. Elavarasi
63 in Ex.P.139 2,02,251 PW159
S.No.379,
381,
382,342Siru
dhavur in
Village.

65 7 acres 44 cents Tr. 1,45,891
In S.No.339/1A, VNSudhakaran PW.46,
338/1A,3,342/3B, Doc.no.43/94 PW159
4A,235/3,4,2,234/1, Dt.5.2.94
2in Siruthavur Village Ex.P.124
Siruthavur Village
67 2groundand1237 sq. M/s. 57,00,040 PW.2
ft. with abuilt LexProperty
up areaof2150 sq. Development Doc.No.125/94
ft.atDoorNo.149, (P) dt.24.2.94
TTK Road, in the Ltd., Ex.P.3
Groundfloorand
2150 Sq. ft. in the first
floor in S. No.3705
part of Sriram Nagar,
TTK Road, Chennai-18

68 1.29acresinS.No.18/4A Doc. 6,49,770.00 PW.25,
1of M/s. J Farm No.1017/94
Enjambakkam House Dt.25.2.94
Village Ex.P.23

69 16.75centsinS.No.1/1F Doc.No.189/book 125.00 PW.16
andold RS No.1/1C4 IV/1994
Tr.V. N.
of Sholinganallore dt.9.3.94
Sudhakaran
Village Ex.P.30,
Ex.P.43,
Ex.C.1, Ex.C.2
70 Actualconsideration 5,70,200.00 PW.16
PaidtoRs.2,35,200/-
andbycashRs.3,35,000/ Ex.P.43
-on
8.3.94forpurchase of
6.75cents

71 Actualconsideration Doc.No.190/Boo 125.00 PW.7,
ofRs.2,35,200/- and k
bycashRs.3,35,000/- IV/1994 dt. PW.51
on8.3.94forpurchase of 9.3.94
16.50 cents Ex.P.31,
Ex.P.34
72 Actualconsiderationby
DDRs.530400 and
Ex.P.44
by cashof Rs.335000. 8,65,400.00 PW.16,

73 16.75centsin Ex.P.32, 45 125.00 PW.7,
R.S.No.1/1Fold PW.51
R.S.No.1/1C4at
Sholinganallore
village
74 Actualconsideration Ex.P.74 5,70,200.00 PW.45
byDD 2,35,200 and
cashofRs.3,35,000
75 6 grounds1087 M/s. Lex 2,84,008.00 PW.136
sq. ft. in 581 sq.ft. Property
undividedshare of Develop Doc. No.370/94
landinS.No.61/1,62,66/ ment (P) Dt. 28.4.94
2 Ltd., Ex.P.647
inplotNo.17, 17-A and
18,WallaceGardenin
Nungambakkam
Village

76 6 grounds1087sq. ft. M/s. Lex 2,84,008.00 PW100,
in 581 sq.ft.undivided Property PW136
share of Develop Doc. No.371/94
landinS.No.61/1,62, ment (P) Dt.28.4.94
66/2in Ltd., Ex.P.648
plotNo.17, 17-A and
18,WallaceGardenin
Nungambakkam Village

77 6 grounds1087sq. ft. M/s. Lex Doc. No.372/94 2,84,008.00 PW100
in 581 sq.ft.undivided Property Dt.3.5.94 PW136
share of Develop Ex.P.649
landinS.No.61/1,62,66/ ment (P)
2 Ltd.,
inplotNo.17, 17-A and
18,WallaceGardenin
18,WallaceGardenin
Nungambakkam Villge

78 6 grounds1087sq. ft. M/s. Lex 2,84,008.00 PW100
in 581 sq.ft.undivided Property PW136
share of Develop Doc.No.373/94
landinS.No.61/1,62,66/ ment (P) Dt.4.5.94
2in Ltd., Ex.P.650
plotNo.17, 17-A and
18,WallaceGardenin
Nungambakkam Village

i
79 3.30 acres n 94,475.00 PW141
PW159
S.No.403/3,401 i Tr. VN Doc.No.222/94
/2 nSudhakaran dt.24.05.94 PW201
Siruthavur Ex.P.905, 1578
Village.

34 cents togetherwith M/s. Doc.No.260/94
80 26coconuttreesinS.No.16 Green Dt. 16.6.94 1,21,040.00 PW159
5/8BinVettuvankenivillag Farm Ex.P-1196,
e Houses 1197, 1198

81 0.34acrestogether 1,21,040.00 PW159
With26coconut M/s. Doc. No.261/94
TreesinS.No.165/7B Green Dt.16.6.94
InVettuvankeni village Farm Ex.P.907
Houses

82 0.34acrestogether M/s. 1,21,040.00 PW159
Doc. No.262/94
With26coconuttrees Green
Dt.16.6.94
InS.No.165/9Ain Farm
Ex.P.1198
Vettuvankeni village Houses

Undividedshareof
83 Landtotheextentof 2,26,130.00 PW.30,
880/72000in10 Jaya Doc. PW159
grounds and 640sq.ft Publicatio ns No. 282/94
atDoorNo.98/99(old Dt.27.6.94
No.38)ofNorthern Ex. P-79, 80
RowofLuzChurch
Road,Mylapore
in R.S.No.1639/5

84 Land and buildingto M/s. Jay Doc. 33,44,040 PW.6,
the extentof4800 sq. No.1325/94 PW.7
Real
ft. with abuilding dt.19.07.94
Estate
Bothintheground Ex.P.29
andfirstfloorin
s.No.5202ofT.Nagar
villagewhichisnowknown
asMurugesa
MudaliStreet.
85 Land and buildingin Plot J.S.Hou 9,95,670.00 PW.26,
No.40 and41 with a sing PW.50
built uparea of 900 sq. Develop Doc.
ft.bothinthe ment
Groundandfirst No.3348/
floors (land extent5 94
grounds)ofsolinganallur Dt.
villagein 10.8.94
Ex.P74
S.No.1/1C5 whichis
now known asNo.1,
MurphyStreet,Akkarai
Village.
86 53 acres 66 centsin Riverwa 1,21,389.00 PW.76,
S.No.436/6,467/3, Agro PW.159
468/2,472/5,401/8, Products Doc.No.429/94
462/8,472/5,401/8, (Pvt) dt.22.8.94
462/8,467/2,484/1A, Ltd., Ex.P.324
484/1C,489/1,462/3,
466/4,462/7,468/2,
490/1,467/1, 464/7in
CherakulamVillage,
S.Nos.188/3,221/1in
Vallakulam village

87 3 acres 51
cents in S.No.43/2 J. Doc. No.478/94
Karunkuzhipallam Vivek Dt.15.9.94 PW27,
Village Ex.P.75 1,58,310.00 PW159
88 4 acres 52 centsin Doc. No.479/94 2,03,510 PW.27,
S.No.46inKarunkuzhipall J. Vivek Dt. 15.09.94 PW.159
am Ex.P.76
Village
89 4 acres 15 centsin J. Vivek Doc. No.480/94 1,86,356 PW.28,
S.No.45inKarunkuzhipall Dt. 15.9.94 PW159
am Ex.P.77
village
90 4 acres 15 cents J. Vivek Doc. No.481/94 1,86,226 PW.28,
inKarunkuzhipallam Dt. 15.9.94 PW159
village Ex.P.78
91 4380 Sq. Ft. landwith M/s. Doc. No.509/94 2,65,000 PW.17,
520 Sq. Ft.house in Sasikala Dt. 26.9.94 PW159
S.No.588/2A, 2B,in Enterprise Ex.P.46 PW161
ThiruvenkadaNagar
Colony
93 37 cents in.No.165/9B Green Doc. No.521/94 1,24,540.00 PW.48,
inVettuvankeni Farm Dt. 27.9.94 PW159
EnjambakkamVillage House Ex.P.125, 1200 PW182

94 2 grounds 733Sq. Ft. M/s. Lex Doc. No.794/94 59,28,050 PW.81
land andbuilding in Property Dt. 29.9.94
DoorNo.150, TTK Develop Ex.P.47, 1324
Road(R.S.No.3705) ment (P)Ltd.,
Plot 1-A

95 5.80 acres Tmt. N. Doc. No.595/94 1,95,800 PW.40,
inS.No.392/6,380/4, 5, sasikala Dt. 11.10.94 PW159
392/3,5, 1, 2, 4, Ex.P.96, 1528,
381/9,380/1, 2 in 1899
Payyanoorvillage.
96 3.52 acres in Tmt. N. Doc. No.596/94 2,86,520 PW.40,
Sl.No.391/1, 2, 3, Sasikala Dt. 11.10.94
5, 6, 7, 392/8, 9, Ex.P.97 PW159
10, 11 in
Payyanoor village
97 5.28 acres Tmt. N. Doc. No.597/94 2,54,670 PW.40,
inS.No.384/1, 3,404/1, Sasikala Dt. 11.10.94 PW159
381/3, 4,5, 6, 7, 10, 11 Ex.P.98
inPayyanoor
Village
98 0.40 acres inS.No.383 Tmt. Doc. No.598/94 1,94,012.00 PW.40,
inPayyanoor village N.Sasikala Dt. 11.10.94 PW159
Ex.P.99
99 0.40 acres inS.No.383 Tmt. Doc. No.599/94 2,04,012.00 PW.40,
inPayyanoorVillage N.Sasikala Dt. 11.10.94
Ex.P.100 PW159

100 2.76 acres inS.No.403 Tmt. Doc. No.600/94 1,76,910.00 PW.40,
inPayyanoorVillage N.Sasikala Dt. 11.10.94
Ex.P.101 PW159

101 4.23 acres Tmt. N Doc. No.601/94 PW.40,
inS.No.379/2 and Sasikala Dt. 11.10.94 PW159
379/3 ofPayyanoor Ex.P.102
Village 2,14,810.00

102 0.51 acres in Tmt. N. Doc. No.602/94 2,14,810.00 PW.40,
S.No.381/9, Sasikala Dt. 11.10.94 PW159
Ex.P.103
392/1 and 392/2
in Payyanoor

103 3197Sq.Ft. Doc 8,55,150 PW.22,
T.S.No.115/P,117/P, No. P 262/94 PW159
127/7inArumbakkam Dt. 31.10.94
MahasubhaLakshmi Ex.P.68
KalyanaMandabam
4564.sq. ft. of siteand Jaya Doc. No.703/94
104 BuildinginT.S.No.2and Publicati Dt. 15.11.94 34,20,160 PW.23,
T.S.No.18,BlockNo.22 ons Ex.P.70, PW159
WhichiscalledNo.Parames 71,
wariNagar, 1927,
UrurVillage. 1020 PW201

105 73 acres 90 cents RiverwayAgro Doc. No. 1,67,126.00 PW.76,
InS.No.471,494/1B, Products(Pvt.) 649/9
495/2,405/1G,464, Ltd., 4
462/9, 2, Dt. 17.11.94
831/4A,4C,262/2,494/1
B,95/2,
405/237,405/23C,
401/202,601/2C1C,
468/8,469/8, 489/1C,
405/19,405/20A, Ex.P.
409/20,462/62,402/12, 330
405/10,
497,501,457,498/2,
1,491/11,492/2,389/1,4
67/3,466/6,
469/2,495,466/6,497,5
01,598/2,498,

601/1,602/1A,601/2A6,
476/5,4,484/3,4,465/11
A,11,
11CA,12C,13, 60, 14,
16, 406/3
60, 14, 16, 406/3
in Cherrakulam village
106 69.78 acres in406/2, Riverwa Doc No.695/94 1,37,204.00 PW.76,
485/2,460/8, 598/1, y Dt. 17.11.94 PW.159
460/6,467/3,487/1, Agro Ex.P.339
455/9,485/9, 487/1, Product
467/3,367/3,66/6, s
466/6,469/2,469/2, (Pvt)
463/1,406/16, 463/1, Ltd.,
406/16,463/5B,469/2,
464/4,405/16, 460/4,
274/1B, 462/9,462/9,
464/5,467/2, 598/1,
398/7, 467/3,474/5,
487/3C,464/3, 469/9,
262/2, 468/2, 490/1 in
Cherrakulam village

107 Extent60acres65-1/2 Riverway Doc No.696/94 1,37,204 PW.76,
Centsin486,495/4, Agro Dt. 17.11.94 PW.159
453/2,422/2,459/2, Products
Ex.P.345
602/2C,602/2A3A,603/1 (Pvt)Ltd.,
,602/2C,604/2B,
,602/2C,604/2B,
495/2,462/4,912,259/2
,472/9,471,
496/1,491/1,496/3,
491/2,4,5, 10, 495/2,
491,492/2inCherkulam
village
108 42 acres 31 centsin Riverway Doc. No.697/94 95,740 PW.76,
S.No.823/9,817/10,822/ Agro Dt. 17.11.94 PW159
5,823/3,817/2C, Products Ex.P.350
35, 36, 159, 37/3,2, (Pvt.)
149/2,149/3,37/2,130/2 Ltd.,
,3,110/2,817/5,9,373/4,
382/3, 374/1, 378/4,
1072/10, 11, 817/2, 2,
1073/1, 1075/7, 822/2,
543/11, 543 in
Meerkulam in village

109 34 acres and 81- Doc. No.698/94 78,801 PW.76,
1/2 cents inVallakulam Riverway Dt. 17.11.94 PW.159
Village in 221/4,218/9A, Agro Ex.P.357
90,225/2, 204/2,204/7, Products
220/2, (Pvt)Ltd.,
681/6, 210/5,223/2,
224/5A,224/5, 6,
197/4,4B, 4, 198/1,
217/2, 618/7,220/4,
220/1,221/5, 225/1,
219/4, 213/5,225/1,
224/2A,222/2B

M/s. Doc. No.759/94
JFarmHo Dt. 12.12.94
110 50 cents in uses Ex.P.72, 909 78,801 PW.24,

S.No.2/1B, 3A in PW.50,
Solinganallur PW159
Village
111 12.70 acres Meadow Doc. No.808/94 1,50,660
inS.No.701/2,654/8, Agro Dt. 22.12.94
605/4,685/5, 9, Farms Ex.P.161
583/8,601/7,198/6, (Pvt)
199/2, 4,
Ltd.,
594/2,688/2
inUthukkaduVillage
112 14.42acresin Meadow Doc. No.898/94 1,68,280 PW.70
S.No.685,693/4, AgroFar Dt.22.12.94
698/1,685/8, 687/4B, ms Ex.P.291
689/6, 1,692,698/3in (Pvt)
Uthukadu village, Ltd.,
113 8.60 acres in Meadow Doc. No.810/94 1,06,343.00 PW.54,
S.No.136/1, 2, 3, Agro Dt. 22.12.94 PW159
137, 138/3, 139, Farms Ex.P.148
172/3A, 4A, (Pvt)
173/2A, 2C Ltd.,
in
Uthukkadu
Village
114 6.98 acres in Riverway Doc. No.811/94 15,888.00 PW.76,
S.No.386/2, Agro Dt. 22.12.94 PW159
402/1, 293/4A, Products Ex.P.363
294/2A, 224/2B in (Pvt)
Kalavai Village Ltd.,
115 55.00 ½ acres in Riverway Doc. No.812/94 1,24,433.00 PW.76,
S.No.682/6,203/6, Agro Dt. 22.12.94 PW159
InVallakulam village Products Ex.P.366
(Pvt)Ltd.,
116 57.01acresinS.No.224/4 Riverway Doc. No.813/94 1,28,963.00 PW.76,
B,204/2in Agro Dt. 22.12.94 PW159
VallakulamVillage Products Ex.P.377
(Pvt)Ltd.,
117 89.62 acres inS.No.496, Riverway Doc. No.814/94 2,02,658.00 PW.76,
221/3, Agro Dt. 22.12.94 PW159
217/8 and other Products
Nos. inVallakulam (Pvt)Ltd.,
village
118 80.95 ½ acres in Doc. No.815/94 1,83,076.00 PW.76,
S.No.470/3, Riverway Dt. 22.12.94 PW159
504/2B and other Agro Ex.P.96
Products
Nos. in (Pvt)Ltd.,
Cherakulam .

village
119 71.57 acres in Riverway Doc. No.816/94 1,71,183.00 PW.76,
S.no.262/1C, Agro Dt. 22.12.94 PW159
103/2C, 260/2A Products Ex.P.408
and other Nos. in (Pvt)Ltd.,
Cherrakulam
Village
120 68.09 ½ acres in Riverway Doc. No.817/94 1,54,009.00 PW.76,
S.No.374/1/3, Agro Dt. 22.12.94 PW159
378/4, 333 and Products Ex.P.409
other Nos. in (Pvt)Ltd.
Meerankulam
village
121 78.09 ½ in Riverway Doc. No.818/94 1,76,609.00 PW.76,
S.No.832/1, Agro Dt. 22.12.94 PW159
527/5, 536/2A Products
and other Nos. in (Pvt)
Meerankulam Ltd., Ex.P.431
village
122 4293 Sq. Ft.together M/s. Doc. No.874/94 43,56,142 PW.86,
with abuilding (2000 Anjaneya Dt. 30.12.94 PW159
Sq. Ft. GroundFloor, Printers Ex.P.513
2600 Sq.Ft. First Floor) (P) Ltd.,
in S. No.6794 which is
called No.68, Habibullah
Road, T. Nagar, Madras-
123 3472Sq.Ft.togetherwith M/s.Anjaneya Doc. No.875/94 59,96,346 PW.86,
building 3000 sq. Printers(P) Dt. 30.12.94 PW159
ft. groundfloor Ltd., Ex.P.515
3700sq.ft.first
FloorinSurveyNo.6794
which iscalled
69, Habibullah Road,
T. Nagar.
48.95acresin Riverway Doc. No.9/95 PW159
124 S.No.252,264/24,250, Agro Dt. 6.1.95 1,10,738 PW.76,
255/1,494/3,495/3,49 Products Ex.P.443 PW159
9/3,504/2,505/1, (Pvt)Ltd.,
50/1,543/2,599/3,
1/3,602,603/3,605/3,
251/297/1,250/1,401,4
68,258/1,68/3,461/1,5
4,25,254,255inCheraku
lamVillage
125 54.98acresin Riverway Doc. No.10/95 1,24,370 PW.76,
S.No.62,68/2,59/2, Agro Dt. 6.1.95 PW159
69/3,78/2,75/1, 78/7, Products Ex.P.450
212/3,484/1,484,492, (Pvt)Ltd.,
67/3, 206/6, 85/2,59,
491inVallakulam
Village
126 62.65acresinS.No.130, Riverway Doc. No.11/95 1,14,301 PW.76,
823/9in Agro Dt. 6.1.95 PW159
Cherakulamvillageand Products Ex.P.456
S.No.830/5,6,729/24,1 (Pvt)
68/1,169/3,5,452/3,81 Ltd.,
5/12,15,822/3,4,817/4
,321/7, 137/6

138/3,9,326/7,420/1,
425,393/3,133,
136/1,2,669,392/5,
6,393/6,816/2,814/5,
97/3,99/11,1,490/3,
68/2, 84/6,62,130/1,
149/4,813/8,374/7,
374/9,384/7,94/1,
96/4,804,420/9,539/1,
804/1,816/2,117/5,417
804/1,816/2,117/5,417
/4,347/1,542/4
Of Meerankulamvillage

128 3.11acresin M/s. Doc. No.25/95 74,471.00 PW.52,
S.No.79inVandampalai RamarajAgro Dt. 11.1.95
Village Mills Ltd., Ex.P.143 PW159

129 4.44 acres in M/s. Doc. No.26/95 1,06,269 PW.52,
S.No.80, 88/1 in Ramaraj Dt. 11.1.95
Vandampalaivillage AgroMills Ex.P.144 PW159
Ltd.,
130 1.31acresInS.No.81/1,2 M/s. Doc. No.27/95 1,53,201 PW.52,
in Ramaraj Dt. 11.1.95 PW159
Keelagavathukudi Agro Ex.P.145
Villageand5.19 Mills
AcresinS.No.84/1, Ltd.,
1CinVandampalai
village
131 8.91acresinS.No.77/1B, M/s.Ramaraj Doc. No.28/95 2,13,061 PW.52,
1A,1C, 81/1A, AgroMills Dt. 11.1.95 PW159
82/1Bpetition. Ltd., Ex.P.146
InVandampalaiVillageand
Keelagavathukudi
village
132 3.84acresInS.No.81/4in M/s.RamarajA Doc. No.29/95 98,293 PW149
Vandampalaivillage groMillsLtd., Dt. 11.1.95 PW159
Ex.P.772

133 6acresinS.No.597/1, Meadow Agro Doc. No.32/95 73,796 PW.56,
370/1,375/6,377/2,671 Farms(Pvt) Dt. 12.1.95 PW.159
/5,671/7,610/2 Ltd., Ex.P.165
InUthukkaduVillage
134 11.66acresin Meadow Doc. No.33/95 1,41,507 PW.56,
S.No.650/2,646/4, 4h, Agro Dt. 12.1.95 PW159
316/3,9,148/1,337/7, Farms Ex.P.172
5,368/1,371/2,375/4,6 (Pvt)
,11,9,369/6, Ltd.,
384/9,330/1e,1f,1i,
2,365/1c, 1d,1a,1h,2,
3,4,646/4b, 4j
135 8.10acresinS.No.78.1, M/s.Ramaraj Doc. No.74/95 1,93,820 PW.53,
2, 75,76/5, 2A, 77/1D AgroMillsLtd., Dt. 31.1.95 PW159
in Ex.P.147
Vandampalai
Village
136 9.65 acres in Meadow Doc. No.148/95 1,13,803 PW.56,
Uthukkadu AgroFarms Dt. 13.2.95 PW159
Village in (Pvt)Ltd., Ex.P.174
S.No.596/6, 7, 8,
658/2,
150/1A,
1B, 1C, 1D, 187,
200/3B, in
Uthukkadu
Village
137 10.29acresin Meadow Doc. No.149/95 1,25,386 PW.56,
S.No.336/12,336/12, AgroFarms Dt. 13.2.95 PW159
368/10,16,145/12, (Pvt)Ltd., Ex.P.180
146/4,609/1,609/2,
610/1,595/1,596/2,
3,5,638/2,6inUthukkadu
Village
138 16.51acres Riverwa doc. No.175/95 37,693 PW.76,
inS.No.260/5,462/10, Agro Dt. 21.2.95 PW159
464/3,465/5,462/8,
401/9,464/2,262,
257,401/4,407/2,9/3A,o
f Cherrakulam village Product
s (Pvt)
Ltd., Ex.P.467

139 30.75acresin Riverway Doc. No.176/95 76,745.00 PW.76,
S.No.199/4,218/1B, AgroProducts Dt. 21.2.95
221/8,36/1,182/1, (Pvt)Ltd., Ex.P.472 PW159
205/2A,220/1,204/5,
6,215/1,13,224/17,
210/3,194/7,198/3,
199/5,97/10,inVallakula
m village
140 51.40 acres S.No.385/3 Riverway agro Doc. No.117/95, 1,17,016 PW76,
288/4, 543/8B, 536/4A, Products (Pvt) Dt. 21.2.95 PW159
416/8B, 832/3, 825/1, Ltd. Ex.P 477
827/7A, 313/3B, 817/8,
831/6, 543/8, 849/2,
848, 830/4B, 829/3A,
825/8, 827/11, 418/6,
310/11, 822/3, 536/1,
530/5, 149/5, 543/13B,
543/10, 543/11, 413/2,
817/5, 813/2B, 535/4,
17, 5/2
823/8, 538/3 in
Meerankulam village R
141 59.82acresin Riverway Doc. No.178/95 1,36,491 PW.76,
S.No.535/20,13,14, AgroProduct Dt. 21.2.95 PW159
10,828/6,829/7,814/4,81 (Pvt)Ltd., Ex.P.488
6/5B,4C,
414/2B,413/4,416/3,
418/3,367/3,8,388/1,
1072,1072/5,6,
1072/12,367/4,
1072/8,171/10,820/2,3
1072/8,171/10,820/2,3
70/6,335/4A,158,61/1,1
37/8,346/2, 358/3,
7/8,374/12,132/1A,
132/1C,112/4C, 4B,
132/1B, 112/4A,11/6B,
341/1, 350/7, 341/3,
345/3, 346/1, 1066/12,
543/15, 347/3,
54/2A2,416

142 8.32acresinS.No.351/7, Meadow Doc. No.213/95 99,353 PW.56,
189/2, AgroFarms Dt. 8.3.95 PW159
195/2,199/7,649/4, (Pvt)Ltd., Ex.P.184
574/10ofUthukkadu
Village.

143 8.65acresin Meadow Doc. No.214/95 1,03,242 PW.56,
S.No.334/1,338/10, AgroFarms Dt. 8.3.95 PW159
359/3,653/1,654/1, (Pvt)Ltd., Ex.P.190
590/3,5, 213/10,
369/7,369/7,9,330/1A,1
F,357/6,
365/1, 369/8,605/1,
2,3,371/1ofUthukkaduVil
lage

Mea
144 1.08 acres in dow Doc. No.238/95 16,004 PW.55,
S.No.612/2A2 of
Uthukadu village Agro PW159
Far Dt. 17.3.95
ms Ex.P.153
(Pvt
Ltd.,
146 Cost ofconstruction of Ex.P.822 57,19,800 PW153
labour quarters(five) in
groundfloor and (Five)
infirst floor, 10
numbers inground floor
and10 numbers infirst
floor,
construction offirst floor
forGuest House,
over the existing
ground floor and
construction of
platform in M/s.
Ramaraj AgroMills Ltd.,
campus At Vandampalai
during 1994-95
147 Cost ofconstruction of Ex.P.822 83,41,000 PW153
compound wall,twin
house, staffquarters for
eightnumbers and MD
bungalow in ramraj
at Vandampalai in
1994-94
148 1.08 acres in Meadow Doc. No.239/95 12,764.00 PW.55,
S.No.612/2A1 of AgroFarms Dt. 17.3.95 PW159
Uthukadu village (Pvt)Ltd., Ex.P.154

149 1.80 acres in Meadow Doc. No.240/95 21,173 PW.55,
S.No.612/1, in AgroFarms Dt. 16.3.95 PW159
Uthukadu Village (Pvt)Ltd., Ex.P.155

151 11.25 acres in Meadow Doc. No.241/95 1,31,649 PW.55,
S.No.611/2 of AgroFarms Dt. 17/3.95 PW159
Uthukadu Village (Pvt)Ltd., Ex.P.156

152 6.40 ½ acres in Meadow Doc. No.242/95 77,203 PW.56,
S.No.577/4, 2,322/1, AgroFarms Dt. 17.3.95 PW159
360/13,332/5, 2, (Pvt)Ltd., Ex.P.197
366/5,577/6, 7, 370/3
ofUthukadu Village

153 1/6th undivided Tr.VN Doc. No.249/95 10,87,196 PW.43,
share of land in 5 Sudhakaran Dt. 21.3.95 PW159
ground and 1133 Ex.P.107
sq. ft. in
S.No.3334/1A of
Luz, Avenue.
154 1/6th undivided Tmt.J. Doc. No.248/95 10,87,196 PW.43,
share of land in Elavarasi. Dt. 21.3.95 PW159
five grounds and Ex.P.106
1133 sq. ft. in
S.No.3334/1A in
Mylapore, LuzAvenue
(Chennai-4)
155 1/6th undivided Tmt. Doc No.247/95 10,87,196 PW.43,
share of land in 5 N.Sasikala Dt. 21.3.95 PW159
grounds and Ex.P.105
1133 sq. ft. in S.
No.3334/1A in
Mylapore, Luz Avenue.
156 1/6th undividedshare of J.S. Doc. No.250/95 10,87,196 PW.43,
land infive grounds Housing Dt. 21.3.95 PW159
and1133 sq. ft. Development Ex.P.108
inS.No.3334/1A ofLuz
Avenue
157 1/6th undividedshare of M/s.Anjaneya Doc. No.251/95 10,87,196 PW.43
land in 5grounds Printers(P) Dt.21.3.95 PW159
and1133 Sq. Ft. in Ltd., Ex.P.109
S.No.3334/1A of
S.No.3334/1A of
Luz Avenue
158 1/6th undividedshare of Jaya Doc.No. 252/95 10,87,196 PW.43
land in 5grounds Contractors Dt 21.3.95 PW159
and1133 Sq. Ft. in andBuilders Ex.P.110
S.No.3334/1A of
Luz Avenue
160 11 cents land and M/s. Lex Doc. No.293/95 7,98,945 PW.51,
building inS.No.74/1 Property Dt 4.4.95 PW159
inNeelankaraiVillage Development Ex.P.135
(P)Ltd.,
161 11 cents land and M/s. Lex Doc. No.294/95 9,49,995 PW.51,
building inS.No.74/1 Property Dt. 4.4.95 PW159
inNeelankaraiVillage Development Ex.P.136
(P)Ltd.,
162 3197 sq. ft. Mahasubha Doc.No. 295/95 8,55,150 PW.22
inT.S.No.115/pt,117/pt, Lakshmi
Dt 4.4.95 PW159
127/7 pt Kalyana
inArumbakkamvillage Mandabam Ex.P.69

163 Land and buildingto M/s. Lex Dt. 19.4.95 19,03,888 PW.78,
theextent of26540 sq. Property Doc.No. 327/95 PW127
ft. witha Development Ex.P.717 PW159
superstructurein T.No. (P)Ltd.,
No.3077to 3079which
isknown as No.30,VOC
Nagar,Tanjore Town

164 7.11 ½ acres and Meadow 84,784 PW.56
in S.No.239/9, 10,11, AgroFarms Dt. 4.5.95 PW159
244/6,293/4B,358/1 (Pvt) Doc.No. 360/95
384/1, 596/2, 596/9, Ex.P207
605/4, 632/1A, 680/1 of
Uthukadu village

ANNEXURE-II(Ex.P.2338)

165 15.71acresin MeadoAgr Doc.No. 361/95 1,88,572 PW.56
S.No.591/2,322/7,8, oFarms(Pv Dt. 4.5.95 PW159
5,226/10,649/4,150/8,3 t)Ltd., Ex.P.214
49/1,3,333/5,
6,7,3,370/5,6,576/1,
585/2,331/5,595/4,
5,597/1,596/12,595/7,5
89/5,6,
7,578/2,3,4,583/8,4,6,
360/3,5,215/5,216/2
InUthukadu Village.
166 KodanadTeaEstate Tmt. Ex.P.1510, 7,60,00,000 PW201
AndTeaFactory,Extent N.Sasikala, 1515,1516,
900acresatKothagiri, Tmt. J. 1517,1576,
NilgirisDistrictacquired Elavarasi 1630,1618,
Onanunregdreconstituti andTr.VN 1101
onof Sudhakaran
Partnershipdeeddt.
5.6.95attotalcostof
Rs.7,60,000.00paymen
tthroughsix
Chequesdt.5.5.95
167 9.50 acres in S.No.324, Meadow Doc. No.446/95 1,12,213 PW.56
681/6, Agro Farms Dt. 13.6.95 PW159
360/9, 184/3, 632/2, (Pvt) Ltd., Ex.P.221
239/5, 309/5, in
Uthukadu Village
168 20.33acresinS.No.198/ Meadow Doc.No. 467/95 40,197 PW159
18 ofin AgroFarms Dt. 3.7.95
VelakapuramVillage (Pvt)Ltd., Ex.P.910

169 20.89acresin Meadow Doc.No. 468/95 40,1975 PW159
S.No.198/180F8 and AgroFarms Dt. 3.7.95
otherNos. In (Pvt.) Ltd., Ex.P.911
170 2.03acresinS.No.385/1 N. Doc. No.191/95 3,44,195 PW.41,
2,385/13, 385/14 Sasikalaa a Dt. 19.7.95 PW159
inPayyanoor Ex.P.104,
Village 1510,
1518, 1631
171 2.34acresinS.No.385/7, N. Doc. 3,91,655 PW159
8, 9,386/1A, Sasikala a No. 492/95
1B,1C,1D, Dt 19.7.95
386/2inPayanoor Village Ex.P.912

172 0.90 acres in N. Doc.No. 493/95 3,21,030 PW159
S.No.386/15, Sasikala a Dt. 19.7.95
385/1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Ex.P.913
6 in Payyanur
Village
173 Expendituretowards 86,91,000 PW.84,
acquisition ofIndo- Doc. No. PW.85,
DohaChemicals Dt PW.92,
1.Tr. Ayyadurai, Ex.P. PW201
Promoter of IndoDoha
PharmaceuticalRs.35,4
5,000/-
2.To interface
capital market
shares -
Rs.24,05,000/-
3. To Ind Bank -
Rs.27,41,000/-
74. OBJECTIONS OF THE ACCUSED:

In her written statement filed under
Sec. 313

Cr.P.C., A-1 has taken up a definite stand in para 10 of the
written statement, which reads as under;
"When I was the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu
between1991 and 1996, I acquired only one
immovable property, a vacant site bearing
Door No. 31-A Poes Garden, Chennai. I
renovated my old house at Door No. 36, Poes
Garden, Chennai, made a new construction at
31-A, Poes Garden, Chennai and also a Farm
house in Hyderabad. The expenditures have
been duly accounted for, disclosed to the
Income-tax Department and accepted by them
after in-depth scrutiny and verification of
facts."

i) The other accused have taken up a plea that
they were having independent source of income and assets.
They were individually assessed under the
Income-tax Act
,
and the various properties standing in their names were
acquired out of their earnings or the business income of the
firms floated by them and therefore, the prosecution is not
justified in clubbing their assets with the properties of A-1.

ii) In para 20 of the written statement submitted
by A-2 under
Sec. 243 (1)
Cr.P.C., she has stated as
under;

"At all times, I had independent income and
Selvi Jayalalitha had her own independent
income and assets in her name. All the four of
us were having independent source of income
and assets and were individually assessed
under the
Income Tax Act
. Hence, clubbing the
assets of myself with A- 1 is unjustified and
illegal both in law and in fact."

iii) A-2 has taken up a further plea that she is a
partner in Jaya Publications. From 1990 onwards, thefirm
had floated a scheme whereunder, any person could invest
by making deposit of Rs.12,000/- to Rs.18,000/- with Jaya
Publications. The depositors were entitled to get a
particular number of copies of the daily news paper
"Namadhu MGR" free of cost. The said news paper carried
the news items and the messages of the General Secretary
of AIADMK party. A-1 was and is the General Secretary of
the party. She has specifically stated in the written
statement that during the check period, an amount of Rs.
14,30,35,000/- was collected and the said scheme was
disclosed to the Income Tax Department and has been
duly accepted by the Income-Tax Authorities up to the
level of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

iv) Regarding the various items of immovable
properties listed by the prosecution in various Annexures,
A-2 has contended that she is not related to the
immovable properties at Sl. Nos. 18 to 306 viz., 18, 24, 27
to 31, 49, 50, 56 to 67, 75 to 79, 86 to 90, 94, 103, 105
to 109, 111 to 121, 124 to 154, 160 to 165, 167 to 169,
173, 174, 176, 177, 179 to 182, 186, 192 to 194, 196 to
200, 206 to 208, 210, 211, 216, 225 to 228, 230 to 233,
235, 237, 240, 242, 248, 249, 251, 252, 258, 262 to 284,
286, 288 to 292, 295, 296, 298, 302, 303, 305 and 306 of
Annexure II.
v) Regarding the other properties, she has
narrated in detail the mode of payment made to the
respective vendors for purchase of these properties and has
mentioned the source from which these items of immovable
properties were purchased and has contended that all the
expenses incurred for the purchase of the above properties
have been declared by her and other accused individually
and the Income-tax authorities have accepted the returns
filed by them after thorough scrutiny and therefore, the
allegations made against them are liable to be rejected.

vi) A-3 has also taken up a similar defence
contending that during the check period, he was carrying
on a business under the name and style "Super Duper TV"
involved in production, coverage of programmes including
entertainment programmes, software equipment hire and
erection of dish antenna and cable TV net work. He was
also carrying on the business in consultation, investment,
programming, trading and vehicle hiring and was also
selling mushrooms purchased from M/s Fresh Mushrooms
and had earned Rs.56 lakh from the coverage of film
clippings, which were telecasted in DD and other TV
channels during the World Tamil Conference.

vii) A-3 has taken up a further defence that he
along with A-2 became a share holder of the company i.e.,
Anjeneya Printers and this Anjeneya Printers acquired the
following properties viz: -

1. Padmanabha Street Rs. 15,96,150.00
2. Habibullah Road Rs. 1,03,52,488.00

3. Luz Avenue 1/6th share Rs. 10,87,196.00

According to A-3, the premises where the machinery
was found, was not exclusively in the occupation of M/s
Anjeneya Printers Pvt., Ltd., but it was also in the
occupation of M/s Jaya Publications. Regarding the
valuation of machinery, A-3, in his written statement, has
put forth a plea that large items of machinery were
purchased from Mr. Shroff, which were under his use. The
said machinery was valued at Rs. 20,16,000/-. Besides the
above, certain other machinery were taken from M/s Jaya
Publications on lease. The expenditure incurred by M/s
Anjeneya Printers Pvt. Ltd., were submitted to the Income-
tax department and were accepted by them. The total cost
of machinery, which was shown in the books of M/s
Anjeneya Printers Pvt., Ltd., at Rs. 74,14,935/- has been
accepted by the Income-tax department after scrutiny.
The total cost of machinery which is inventoried under Ex.
P-664 would be Rs.94,30,935/-including the cost of
machinery purchased from Mr. Shroff amounting to Rs.
20,16,000/-. Therefore, Rs.1,22,11,065/- is liable to be
excluded from item No. 194 of the Annexure-II.

viii) A.3 has further contended that an amount of
Rs. 50.98 lakhs shown towards the conveyance charges is
totally unjustified and opposed to law. With regard to the
cost of construction at Ekkatu Thangal, A-3 has contended
that the entire cost of construction shown by the
prosecution at Rs.2,13, 63,450/- is liable to be excluded
for the reason that the site on which the building is situate
belongs to a different company by name Shastry Nuts and
Bolts. It is specifically stated in para 20 of the written
statement that Anjeneya Printers Pvt., Ltd., is a tenant of
the building and has been paying rent to M/s Shastry Nuts
and Bolts. Therefore, the above said amount of
Rs.2,13,63,450/- is liable to be excluded totally.

The learned Sessions Judge at sub-paragraph of
76.6 has narrated the evidence of PW.17-Tmt.Sundari.
PW.17 Tmt. Sundari Shankar, the owner of theaforesaid
property deposed on oath that, she was the owner of plot
at C-62, Thiruvenkata Nagar, Ambaltur, Chennai
measuring 4830 Sq. Ft. She had constructed a house
measuring 600 Sq. Ft. therein. She wanted to sell that
land. Her neighbour one Ramesh wanted to buy it. She
entered into an agreement to sell the said property for
Rs.5 lakhs and received Rs.1.75 lakh as advance. But the
said Ramesh could not purchase the property and PW.17
was not in a position to refund the advance money. After
two or three months, the said Ramesh told PW.17 that, a
person close to Selvi J. Jayalalitha has come forward to
buy the property and she was taken to registration office
and executed thesale deed. PW.16 specifically deposed in
her chief-examination that the sale amount was Rs.5
lakhs. Out of that amount, a D.D. for Rs.1,90,000/- was
given to her and out of the remaining amount, Ramesh
took Rs.1,75,000/- due to him and gave her the rest of the
amount in cash. Her daughter Bama Chandran and
Ramesh have signed the sale deed as witnesses. She
further deposed that the amount given as cash is not
shown in the sale deed. In the cross-examination she
denied the suggestion that she had entered into an
agreement with Ramesh for Rs.1,90,000/-. She asserted in
the cross-examination that the said agreement was for
Rs.5 lakhs. She also denied the suggestion that at the
instance of the police she has falsely stated that she had
taken Rs. 5 lakhs in connection with the said dealing.

76.7) It is the submission of the learned Counsel for
A-2 that the so called agreement entered into with
Ramesh is not produced in evidence and more over her
testimony being contrary to
Sec.92
of the Evidence Act, no
reliance can be placed on her testimony. The learned
Counsel also pointed out that, Ramesh, the attester to
Ex.P.46 is examined as PW.161 but in his evidence he has
not spoken anything about the execution of the agreement
for Rs.5 lakhs with PW.17. Therefore, the claim made by
the prosecution in this regard is not supported by oral or
documentary evidence.

76.8) I have gone through the evidence of PW.161
Sri. R.Ramesh, the Asst. Manager at Indian Bank,
Abirampuram Branch. The relevant portion of his chief-
examination reads as under;
"During December 1992, to purchase a
houseand a vacant site in Thiruvenkata Nagar,
Ambaltur, Chennai from Mrs. Sundari Shankar
in the name of myself and my wife, we
executed a sale agreement for that I gave
Rs.1,75,000/- to Sundari Shankar as advance.
To purchase the above mentioned property, I
wanted to avail loan from our bank. But they
told that the loan will not given for old house. I
informed Sundari Shankar about this and
asked her to return the advance she had
taken. But she told me that as she had
invested the advance money in a property in
Porur, she could not return the advance. She
told me to sell that property to another person
and take my advance. So requested out
Manager Mrs. Susarita Sunder Rajan, to make
arrangements for the above mentioned
property to be sold to Mrs. Sasikala. She spoke
to Tmt. Sasikala and finally agreed to purchase
that property for Rs. 5 lakhs. In September
1994, I brought the above Sundari Shankar to
District Registration Office (North Chennai) and
arrayed for the registration. Then, Mr. Raja
Gopalan was the District Registrar. Mr. Raja
Gopalan gave the sale amount for the above
mentioned property. Rs.1,90,000/- was given
as a D.D. in the name of Mrs. Sundari Shankar.
The remaining Rs.3,10,000/- was given to me
as cash from that amount. I took the advance
of Rs.1,75,000/- which I had paid. I handed
over the remaining amount and the demand
draft to Mrs. Sundari Shankar. In the sale deed
I have signed as a witness. "

In the cross-examination it is elicited that, PW.161
did not show the agreement copy to the police. However,
he has maintained in the cross-examination that his wife
and he signed the agreement in which they fixed the price
as Rs.5 lakhs as sale amount for that house. In the further
cross-examination PW.161 has answered thus;
"My wife and I gave back the agreement
wemade to them. We don't have the photo
copy for that. I don't have any documents
regarding the agreement with Mrs. Sundari
Shankar. I don't have any documents
regarding the loan availed in the bank
regarding the agreement with Mrs. Sundari
Shankar, these is only the oral deposition. I
have given my wife and I gave Rs.1,75,000/-
to Mrs. Sundari Shankar as cash."

76.9) Thus, it could be seen that, PW.161 has
substantially corroborated the testimony of PW.17 with
regard to the prior agreement of sale entered into between
PW.17 and PW.161. Both these witnesses have stated
that, at the time of execution of the sale deed,
Rs.1,75,000/- was paid as advance consideration and the
said amount was refunded to PW.161 at the time of
execution of the sale deed Ex.P.46. It is borne on record
that the sale consideration in Ex.P.46 is shown as
Rs.1,90,000 and it is also not in dispute that the said
consideration of Rs.1,90,000/- was paid to PW.17 through
D.D. Under the said circumstances, if in fact the said
consideration was the total considerationreceived by
PW.17 in respect of sale transaction, naturally a question
would arise as to how PW.17 would have repaid the
advance received by her in respect of very same
transaction. It is not the case of either of the parties that
PW.161 was repaid Rs.1,75,000/- after encashment of the
D.D. In all probability, PW.161 would not have signed the
sale deed as witnesses if the advance consideration paid
by him was not refunded to him before the registration of
sale deed. Therefore, the testimony of PW.161 appears to
be nearer to the truth. In this context, the answers elicited
from the mouth of PW.161 in the course of the cross-
examination that the sale agreement was returned to the
vendor appears to be probable and leads to the inference
that, on refund of Rs.1,75,000/- on the execution of the
sale deed the agreement of sale was returned to the
vendor. There is nothing unnatural in the conduct of
PW.161 and probabilities also suggest that he would not
have allowed the sale to go through without getting the
refund of the money paid by him. Accused have not
brought on record any circumstance to show that, PW.161
has any reason to give false evidence against the accused
taking upon himself the contractual relationship with
PW.17. Therefore, taking into consideration the above
facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to accept the
contention raised by the accused in this regard.

77. Cash paid over and above Sale
Consideration.Item No.24:

24 Amount paid to TNHB towards
Rs.2,35,813.00 allotment of plot No.L-66,
(Old No.524 N) Anna Nagar, Chennai-40,
in favour of Tmt. J. Elavarasi

PW.128 Balakrishnan, Asst. Secretary, TamilNadu
Housing Board has deposed that, as per Ex.P.718, Plot
No.E-83, Besant Nagar was allotted to A-3. Ex.P.720 is the
order of allotment. Ex.P.721 is the application submitted by
A-3. Along with the application, address proof, income
certificate and declaration that applicant is the wife and
children, do not own any house or plot at any other place
were required to be furnished and accordingly A-3
submitted the declaration and age proof and income
certificate. In the income certificate Ex.P.732, the yearly
income of A-3 is shown as Rs.44,000/- and as per
Ex.P.724, the Tahsildar has certified that A-3 is residing at
No.18, Balamuttukrishnan Street, Chennai-17. An
allotment order was passed determining the total value of
the plot at Rs.2,88,750/-. It was paid on 30.07.1992 as per
Ex.P.725. The registration fee also was paid. The ownership
was delivered. As per Ex.P.728, the Surveyor delivered the
possession to A-3.

This witness further deposed that as per Ex.P.719
HIG Plot No.10, Egmore-374, Alwar Pet, Chennai
wasallotted to A-4 and again Plot No.524 was allotted
instead of the earlier allotment as per Ex.P.729. Ex.P.730
is the application submitted by A-4. Along with the said
application she submitted the income certificate as per
Ex.P.732. Address proof as per Ex.P.733 and two
certificates issued by the Tahsildar. As per Ex.P.732 the
yearly income of A-4 was Rs.48,000/-. The total value of
the plot is Rs.2,34,813/-The amount was paid as per
Ex.P.735. The possession was delivered on 23.10.1992 as
per Ex.P.736. On 25.02.1993 no objection certificate was
granted to her to construct a residential house in the said
plot.

In the cross-examination it is suggested to PW.128
that the site allotted to A-3 is still with the Housing Board
and the money paid by A-3 should be returned. PW.128
denied the said suggestion. The allotment and the
payment made by A-3 and A-4 in respect of the above
allotment and the declarations given by them regarding
their address and income status has not been disputed in
the cross-examination. Hence the accused are not entitled
for return of the amount.

It is the argument of the learned Counsel for A-2
that the evidence of PW.45 is hearsay evidence
andtherefore no credence could be given to his evidence.
Tmt. Sucharita is not examined by the prosecution. No
document is produced regarding the deposit of cash to the
Bank account of Nageswara Rao on that day as spoken by
the witnesses and therefore, the prosecution is not entitled
to take into account any amount other than what is shown
in the sale deed Ex.P.105 to P.110 and hence the entire
amount of Rs.76,00,000/-included in item No.159 is liable
to be deducted.

I have gone through Ex.P.111 to P.120. They are the
copies of the current account pay-in slips for cash
deposits. According to PW.44, he himself wrote these pay-
in slips in his hands as instructed by Tmt. Sucharita. But,
on perusal of these documents, it is seen that, Ex.P.111
and P.112 are dt. 1.2.95. Ex.P.113 to P.119 are dated
28.2.95 and Ex.P.120 is dated 18.3.95. These pay-in slips
stand for different amounts. Ex.P.111 dated 18.3.95
stands for Rs.14,50,000/-. According to PW.43, the sale
deeds Ex.P.105 to P.110 were executed on 19.3.95 i.e., on
a Sunday. He has no where stated in his evidence that the
cash consideration of Rs.58.73 lakhs was paid to him any
time earlier to the date of registration. That being the
case, there is no reason for the bank Manager to instruct
PW.144 to write the anterior date in the pay-in slips. There
is no explanation as to why the different amount is entered
in the said pay-in-slips if the entire amount of
Rs.58.73lakhs was given to PW.43 on the date of the
registration. In this context, it is also pertinent to note
that, PW.43 was recalled at the instance of the accused
and was subjected to further cross-examination on
29.1.2003 and at that time, PW.43 has given a totally
different version about the credit of cash amount into his
loan account stating that, by sale of the cameras, he
raised Rs.75 lakhs and deposited the money into his
account to clear the loan. But even in this regard there is
no clear evidence, nonetheless, solely on the basis of the
pay-in-slips produced by the prosecution at Ex.P.111 to
P.121, it may not be safe to hold that huge sum of Rs.76
lakhs was paid into the hands of PW.43 when he himself
was not the owner of the said properties. The owner of the
property viz., his sister Ramayi Ammal is not examined
before the Court, the Bank Manager is also not been
examined. The loan account of PW.43 is not produced
before the Court to ascertain the correctness of the
statements made by the witnesses. Under the said
circumstances, merely on the basis of the fact that PW.43
had filled in the pay-in-slips as directed by the Bank
Manager Tmt. Sucharita, it cannot be concluded that a
sum of Rs.76 lakhs was paid by the accused towards the
cost of acquisition of Luz Avenue property. In this context,
it is also relevant to note that the names of the purchaser
were not entered in Ex.P.105 to P.110 at the time of
registration of these documents. Though the entire
transactions appear tobe shoddy and suspicious and it is
really shocking to note as to how the Registrar could
register the document leaving the name of the purchaser
blank. The endorsements made by the Registrar on this
document indicate that the purchaser was not present at
the time of registration of the document. PW.43 has not
stated as to who paid the sale consideration and the cash
amount of Rs.58.73 lakhs to him. He has merely stated
that, Ramayi Ammal signed the sale deed. Shankar and he
put the witness signature. Six blank cheques worth Rs.44
lakhs were given to the bank itself. One cheque for Rs.10
lakhs was given to Ramayi Ammal and an amount of
Rs.58.73 lakhs cash was credited to his account. On the
basis of the vague and general statement made by PW.43,
without there being any corroboration thereto, solely on
the basis of his oral testimony, the cost of Rs.76 lakhs
cannot be mulct on the accused. Hence this amount shall
be deducted from the computation of the assets.

78. III.NEW / ADDL. CONSTRUCTION
OFBUILDINGS:

In Sl. No.174, 176 to 191, 301, 302 of
Annexure II, the prosecution has listed 19 new/
additional construction said to have been constructed
by the accused during the check period. The total
value of these constructions come to
Rs.28,17,40,430/-. The details of the construction are
as under;

174 New/Additional Construction in building Rs.80,75,000/-
at 5 B & C East Coast Road, Door
No.4/130 Raja Nagar, Neelankarai,
Chennai-41 (Ref. Doc.No.4752/93 Of
S.R.O. Adyar)Evaluation Report

176 New/ Additional construction in Farm 1,25,90,261.00
House Bungalows at Payannur in
Chengai Anna District.

New/ Additional Construction building
177 at 2,13,63,457.00
Door No.48, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
Industrial Estate, Guindy,
Ekkatuthangal, Chennai (M/s. Anjaneya
Printers (P) Ltd.,
Printers)
178 New/ Additional Construction in the 1,52,59,076.00
residential building at D.No.3/178C

Vettuvankeni, Chennai

179 New/ Additional construction in the 6,40,33,901.00
building at the Grape Garden Farm
House, in the limits of Jeedi Metla and
Petpesherabad Villages in A.P.
New/ Additional construction in the
180 posh 5,40,52,298.00
Bangalow at Siruthavur in Chegai MGR
Dist.
181 New/ Additional construction in the 7,24,98,000.00
residential building at D.No.36, Poes
Garden, Chennai - 86.

182 New/ Additional construction in building 29,59,000.00
at 149, 150 of TTK Road, Chennai - 18.

183 New/ Additional construction in building 80,36,868.00
at Sea Shell Avenue No.2/1-B-3
Apartmen
t Sholinganallore Saidapet,
Taluk.
New/ Additional Construction in
184 Building 8,00,000.00
at Door No.19, Pattammal Street,
Mylapore, Chennai

185 New/ Additional Construction in 20,43,000.00
residential building at Door No.21
Padmanabha Street, T. Nagar,
Chennai-17
186 New/ Additional Construction in 24,83,759
residential building at No.L/66, Anna
Nagar, Chennai
New/ Additional Construction in
187 Building 10,92,828.00
at Door No.5, Murugesan Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai-17
188 New/ Additional Construction in 53,11,000.00

residential building (4 Nos) in the
campus at No.1/240, Enjambakkam, in
New Mahabalipuram Road.
189 New/ Additional Construction in 20,38,959.00
residential Building at No.1, Murphy
St.,
Akkarai, Chennai.
New/ Additional Construction in
190 Building 39,34,000.00
at S.No.32/2-4, Plot Nos.S-7,
Ganapathy Colony, Tr. Vi-Ka Indl.
Estate, Guindy, Chennai-32.
191 New/ Additional Construction in 14,17,538.00
Buildings and the change of roof for the
works shed at MF-9, Guindy Industrial
Estate, Chennai-32.
301 Cost of renovation and additional 39,34,000.00
construction between June 1992 and
1993, of the building at Plot No.102,
ITI
Cross, Road, Pon Nagar, Trichy, owned
by Tmt. N. Sasikala (covered by
Document No.2256/90 dt. 3-5-90 of
S.R.O.T. O.R.B., Trichy)

78.33) In the instant case, there cannot be any
dispute that, the Engineers examined by the prosecution
are competent to estimate the valuation of the structures.
The accused themselves have relied on the valuation
report prepared by the P.W.D. Engineers, who were part
of the team to controvert the reports prepared by the
prosecution witnesses. It is not explained by the
prosecution as to why the reports prepared by DW.78 and
DW.83 are preferable to the reports prepared by the entire
team which are proved in a Court of law. Undisputedly,
the actual cost incurred for the constructions is within the
knowledge of theaccused. It has come in evidence that,
contractors and architects were appointed in connection
with the construction. The learned Counsel for A-4 himself
has referred to the payment made to the architect, who is
examined by the accused as DW.88. Under the said
circumstance, instead of relying on the reports of DW.78
and DW.83, the accused could have very well produced
the actual bills for having purchased the materials and
could have examined the contractors and the persons who
supplied the materials in proof of the actual cost incurred
for the constructions.

78.34) It is pertinent to note that the accused do not
dispute the measurement of the buildings and the nature
of the constructions and the quality of the materials used
therein. The witnesses examined by the prosecution have
specifically deposed about the use of high quality marble
and exquisite decorative articles and use of teakwood for
the doors and windows and for other purposes. No doubt it
is true that the prosecution has not produced any direct
evidence in proof of the cost of these special items and has
solely relied on the oral testimony of the above witnesses
who have merely stated that they ascertained the price of
the marbles and other special items from the market. But,
it should not be forgotten that the special items having
been procured by the accused from the concerns known to
them, the price paid thereto is specially within the
knowledge of the accused. Having regard to the burden
cast on the accused in view of the provisions of
Sec.
13(1)(e)
of the Act, which requires the accused to offer
satisfactory explanation when the existence of assets are
proved by the prosecution, the accused were not prevented
from adducing necessary evidence to show that the value
of the special items quoted by the prosecution is more than
the price paid by them in respect of these special items.

78.35) No doubt it is true that, an attempt is made
by the accused to prove the cost of the marbles by
examining DW.96 and through him, the copies of invoices
are marked as Ex.D.210 series. But, on going through his
evidence, it is seen that the rates furnished by him relate
to the year 1999, whereas, the buildings in question are
proved to have been constructed between 1994 and 1996.
Therefore, even the rates spoken to by DW.96 cannot be
accepted. The invoices produced by this witness do not
tally with the description of the marbles noted in the
respective valuation reports. Therefore, I do not find any
justifiable reasons to accept the arguments of the learned
counsel for the accused regarding the valuation adopted by
the prosecution. However, as the prosecution has not
produced convincing evidence in support of the value fixed
by the PWD Engineers in respect of the value of the special
items and there beingsome dispute regarding the
payments of the architect's fees, in order to meet the ends
of justice, it would be proper to reduce the overall cost of
constructions by 20% of the total estimation given by the
prosecution witnesses. In this way, by reducing the total
cost of constructions by 20%, the cost of the new and
additional constructions of the buildings effected by the
accused during the check period is determined at
Rs.22,53,92,344.00.

Under the heading of 'Gold and Diamond Jewellery',
the learned Sessions Judge at paragraph 79.18 has
observed as under:

79.18) Thus, what emerges from the above
evidence is that, at the commencement of the check
period, A-1 was in possession of only 7040 grams of gold
jewellery. As already noted above, A-1 herself has
admitted in the wealth returns that, increase in the value
of jewellery is on account of the jewellery received as gift
during the year. This declaration presupposes that during
the year 1992, A-1 had received gold jewellery. Under the
said circumstance, she is estopped from contending that
all the jewellery seized by the prosecution was in her
possession before commencement of the check period.
This conclusion gets fortified from the testimony of
PW.155 who has categorically stated before the Court
that, he was called to prepare the valuation report only in
November, 1992 and as required by A-1 and A-2, he
prepared different valuation report for the relevant years
commencing from 1986-87, even though the bills for the
purchase of the said jewellery were not produced before
him. From the evidence of this witness, it stands
established that the valuation reports were prepared only
for the purpose of submitting the wealth tax returns in the
year 1992 by segregating the articles for the previous
years at the whims and fancy of A-1. Admittedly, A-1 was
not in possession of any bills for purchase of this gold
anddiamond jewellery as on the date of filing the wealth
returns. There is also no explanation by the accused as to
how the gold was accumulated during the years. Under
the said circumstances, merely because the wealth tax
returns were filed by her before the initiation of the
criminal proceedings does not exonerate her of her liability
to explain the source of the huge quantity of gold and
diamond articles. Even during the trial, A-1 has failed to
furnish any satisfactory explanation except stating that all
the jewellery were in her possession from the
commencement of the check period. But the evidence
discussed above proves it otherwise.

79.19) Another important aspect that emerges from
the evidence of PW.155 and PW.179 is that, Ex.P.1014 to
Ex.P.1016 valuation reports were prepared in the name of
A-2 in order to facilitate her to file wealth returns in her
name in respect of the gold ornaments described threin.
There is no evidence as to when and how A-2 acquired
these gold and diamond articles. It has come in evidence
that her husband was in Govt. service till 1991. If so, in all
probability, the source for acquisition of these assets would
have been available with A-2 and could have been
produced before the Court to explain her ownership over
these jewellery. The fact that in 1992 while preparing the
valuation reports in relation to the gold jewellery possessed
by A-1, separate valuation reports were prepared in
thename of A-2 leads to the inference that in order to
avoid the large scale disclosure of the gold and diamond
jewellery possessed by A-1, some of these items were
declared in the name of A-2. This amounts to a serious
instance of abetment and conspiracy alleged against the
accused. The very fact A-2 is unable to explain the source
of acquisitions of these valuables, it could be presumed
that A-2 has aided and abetted A-1 in holding the said
assets in her name.

79.20) From the above evidence, the prosecution
has proved the seizure of gold and diamond jewellery of
the total weight of 27588 grams. But as it is proved in
evidence that 7040 grams of gold and diamond jewellery
were in possession of A-1 prior to the check period, the
said quantity is required to be left out from the total
computation of the value of the gold and diamond
jewellery found in the possession of A-1. Thus, the total
weight of the gold jewellery found in the possession of A-1
as on 30.04.1996 comes to 20548 grams.

79.21) Regarding the valuation of the gold as in
1992, we have the reliable material in the assessment
order Ex.P.2206, wherein, the assessing officer has
adopted the rate of gold as on 1991-92 at Rs.4,334/-per
10 grams. The learned counsel for A-1 has produced the
copy of Circular No.646 dt. 15.03.1993 issued under Rule
19 of Sch.
III of Wealth Tax Act
,wherein, the same rate is
published by the concerned authorities. Thus, the value of
20548 grams of gold found in possession of A-1 during the
check period is calculated as below:

20548 x Rs.433/- = Rs.8,90,55,032/-

It has come in the evidence of PW.125 that, while
valuing the gold, he did not add the making charges and
wastages and took into consideration only the value of the
gold and to fix the value of the diamonds he took into
consideration the cutting, colour carat weight. He has
further stated that, first he weighed the ornaments and
then deducted the approximate weight of the stones and
accordingly determined the weight of the gold and its
values. This witness has separately given the value of the
diamonds at Rs.2,43,92,790/-. Since the gross weight of
7040 grams is deducted, the proportionate value of the
diamonds comes to Rs.1,62,61,820/-. Thus, adding this
figure to the value of the gold as above, the total value of
the gold and diamond jewellery found in the possession of
A-1 during the check period comes to Rs.2,51,59,144/-.
With regard to Silver, the learned Sessions Judge at
paragraph 80.9 has observed that, in the wealth tax
returns filed by her as per Ex.P.2179 she has categorically
admitted that silverwares were received as gifts during the
year. This declaration is consistent with the case of the
prosecution that, the additional silverware amounting to
416 kgs were acquired by her during the check period. A-1
has not produced any reliable evidence in proof of the
source for acquisition of the silverware. As a result, it could
be safely inferred that 416 kgs of silver is the illegal
acquisition of A-1.
80.10) PW.125 has valued the silver at the rate of
Rs.5,000/- per kg. whereas, in the Wealth Tax assessment
order relied on by the accused, the silver is seen to have
been valued at Rs.6,646/- per kg. Since the rate adopted
by PW.125 is advantageous to the accused, adopting the
said rate, the value of 416 kgs. of silver is assessed at
Rs.20,80,000/- which is added to the over all assets of A-1
acquired during the check period.

The trial Court has computed the value of the fixed
deposits and shares amounting to Rs.3,42,62,728/-.

258 Fixed Deposit in Canara Bank 16,03,545.00
Mylapore in the name of Selvi J.
Jayalalitha under Kamadenu Deposit.
(KDR No.950485 dt 27.5.94)
259 F.D. in Canara Bank Mylapore in the 1,49,544.00
name of M/s. Jaya Publications under
Kamadenu Deposit
(KDR No.941263 dt. 19.9.94)
260 F.D. in Canara Bank Mylapore in the 5,00,000.00
name of M/s. Jaya Publications under
Kamadenu Deposit
(TDR No.649868 dt. 20.4.95)
261 F.D. in Canara Bank Mylapore branch 71,218.00
in the name of M/s. Jaya Publications
(KDR /941261 dt. 19.9.94)
262 F.D. in IB, Abirampuram in the name 5,00,000.00
ofM/s. Super Duper (P) Ltd.,
(TDR/649865 dt. 25.3.95)
263 -do- 5,00,000.00
(TDR/649866 dt. 25.3.95)
264 -do- 5,000000.00
(TDR/ 649867 dt. 25.3.95)
265 F.D. in Kothari Oriental Finance in the 1,00,000.00
name of A-1
(FDR No/ 47740 dt. 29.8.95)
266 -do- 1,00,000.00
(FDR/ 64280 dt. 29.7.95) By renewal
of
FDR 48173
267 -do- 1,00,000.00
(FDR 64302 dt. 29.7.95) by renewal of
FDR 48172
F.D. in Sriram investments in the
268 name 3,00,000.00
of A-1 by renewal of FDR
(F-1945) renewed from F.D. 19451
(47437 dt 29.5.91)
269 -do- 30,00,000.00
(5006835 dt 9.8.94)
By renewal of FDR / 5006345
F.D. in Sriram Investments in the
270 name 15,00,000.00
of A-1 (5007694 dt 12.9.94)
271 -do- 5,00,000.00
By renewal of FDR No. F 71533 and F
21330 which is to mature on 29.1.98
Dt 29.12.94
272 -do- 15,00,000.00
5015594 dt 22.3.95
273 -do- 10,00,000.00
5015955 dt 22.3.95
274 -do- 20,00,000.00
5025367 dt 19.10.95
275 Investment in equity shares in Madras 000
Oxygen and Acetylene Company Ltd.,
Coimbatore by A-1's mother.
276 Shares in Kunal Engg. 000

277 F.D. in Canfin Homes in the name of A- 1,00,00,000.00
1 (352/94 dt 6.3.95)
298 Amount invested under R.I.P. 1,00,00,000.00
(Reinvestment plan by A-1 in Indian
Bank, Abirampuram Branch) vide
receipt No.176580 dt 18.6.92
303 Amount deposited in MIDR 70/9 with 3,00,000.00
CBI, Secunderabad, after renewal of
earlier MIDRs 66/9, 68/33 and 60/9.
SB A/c. No.20614
306 Amount deposited in the name of 38,421.00
Master Vivek in Indian Bank, (on
receipt of terminal benefits of his
father
Tr. V. Jayaraman)
Total 3,42,62,728.00

82. VII) CASH BALANCE IN BANK ACCOUNTS:
Item Nos.193 to 229, 296, 300-304
PW.162-Subramaniam, Sr. Manager, Canara Bank,
Mylapore Branch, PW.182-Arunachalam, Chief Manager,
Indian Bank, Abirampuram Branch and PW.201-C.K.R.K.
Vidhya Sagar, officer, Canara Bank,Mylapore Branch, have
spoken about each of these items with reference to the
extract of the statement of accounts which are marked in
evidence and are not disputed by the accused. Hence, the
entire cash balance in the bank accounts of the accused
amounting to Rs.97,47,751.32 is taken into account.

CASH BALANCE AS PER ANNEXURE-II

ITEM
NO. NATURE OF ASSETS VALUE (IN RS.)
193 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 in the SB 2,42,211.50
Acc. No. 4110 of Indian Bank,
Abhiramapauram opened on 12.9.1994 in
the
name of Master J. Vivek, S/o J. Elavarasi,
194 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 167.20
1134 of Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram
opened
on 23.11.1994 in the name of J. Elavarasi
(Signora Business Enterprises,
195 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 771.26
1071 of Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram
opened
on 11.3.1994 in the name of N. Sasikala
(Fresh Mushrooms Prop.)
196 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 85,342.25
1107 of Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram
opened
on 31.8.1994 in the name of J. Elavarasi
(Lex
Property Development (P) Ltd.,
197 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 1,32,221.00
1068 of Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram
opened
on 30.3.1994 in the name of V.N.
Sudhakaran,
198 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 19,29,561.58
2018 of CB, Mylapore opened on 12.10.1990
in the name Selvi J. Jayalalitha,
of
199 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 3,40,527.95
1171 of Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram
opened
on 28.3.1995 in the name of J. Elavarasi.

200 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of SB Acc. No. 1,70,570.13
23832 of CB,
Mylapore opened on 16.4.1991
in the name
of Selvi J. Jayalalitha,
201 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 2,900.28
2277 of CB, Mylapore opened on 10.11.1993
in the name of M/s Metal King in which
Sasikala is the proprietrix

202 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 1,889.28
2196 of CB, Mylapore opened on 1.12.1992
in the name of Tmt. Sasikala
203 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 20,79,885.12
2047 of CB, Mylapore opened on 26.9.1990
(on transfer Form Kellys Branch) in the
name
of Jaya Publications in which Selvi J.
Jayalalitha &Tmt. N. Sasikala are the
partners,
204 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of SB Acc. No. 1,095.60
23218 of CB, Mylapore opened on 23.5.1990
in the name of Tmt. N.
Sasikala,

205 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of CA No. 3,17,232.21
1245 of CB, Guindy opened on 2.1.1995 in
the name of Tmt. N. Sasikala (Metal King),
206 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of CA No. 47,453.64
2220 of CB, Mylapore opened on 7.4.1993 in
the name of V.N. Sudhakaran,
207 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of CA No. 3,17,475.64
1689 of CB, Anna Nagar (East) opened on
1.12.1993 in the name of V.N. Sudhakaran
(Maha Subhalakshmi Kalyana Mandapam),
208 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of SB Acc. 61,430.00
No. 24621 of CB, Mylapore opened on
25.2.1992 in the name of V.N. Sudhakaran,
209 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 1,760.00
1179 of Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram
opened
on 5.5.1995 in the name of Jaya Finance
Pvt., Ltd.,
210 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 1,18,198.00
2219 of CB, Mylapore opened on 7.4.1993 in
the name of J. Elavarasi,
211 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of SB Acc. No. 894.00
25389 of CB, Mylapore opened on 23.1.1993
in the name of J. Elavarasi,
212 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of CA No. 560.55
2133 of CB, Mylapore opened on 3.2.1992 in
the name of Tmt. N. Sasikala,
213 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of CA No. 10,75,335.64
2250 of CB, Mylapore opened on 29.7.1993
in the name of Tmt. N. Sasikala & V.N.
Sudhakaran (i.e., Anjaneya Printers),
214 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of CA No. 4,59,976.22
2061 of CB, Mylapore opened on 21.3.1991
in the name of Selvi J. Jayalalitha &Tmt. N.
Sasikala (M/s Sasi Enterprises),
215 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 167.55
1050 of Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram
opened
on 27.1.1994 in the name of M/s Jaya Real
Estate
216 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 5,46,577.50
1152 of Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram
opened
on 25.1.1995 in the name of Tmt. N.
Sasikala
& V.N. Sudhakaran (i.e., Super Duper TV
Pvt., Ltd.,)
217 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 1,838.00
1059 of Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram
opened
on 27.1.1994 in the name of Tmt. N.
Sasikala
& V.N. Sudhakaran (M/s JJ Leasing &
Maintenance),

218 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 13,671.80
1062 of Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram in the
name of Tmt. N. Sasikala, Tmt. J. Elavarasi
&
V.N. Sudhakaran (M/s JS Housing Corpn.),
219 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 146.70
1058 of Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram
opened
on 27.1.1994 in the name of Tmt. N.
Sasikala (M/s Green Garden Apartments
Farm House), Tmt. J. Elavarasi & V.N.
Sudhakaran,
220 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 10,891.00
1049 of Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram
opened
on 27.1.1994 in the name of Tmt. N.
Sasikala, V.N. Sudhakaran &Tmt. J.
Elavarasi (M/s Jaya Contractors & Builders),
221 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 1,02,490.18
1044 of Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram
opened
on 15.12.1993 in the name of Selvi J.
Jayalalitha &Tmt. N. Sasikala (M/s Sasi
Enterprises),
222 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 1,02,490.00
1149 of Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram
opened
on 23.3.1995 in the name of V.N.
Sudhakaran, Tmt. J. Elavarasi &Tmt. N.
Sasikala (M/s Sakthi
Construcitons),
223 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 1,02,490.18
1146 of Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram
opened
on 23.3.1995 in the name of Tmt. N.
Sasikala, Tmt. J. Elavarasi & V.N.
Sudhakaran (M/s Gopal
Promoters),
224 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 1,02,490.18
1140 of Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram
opened on
23.3.1995 in the name of Tmt. N.
Sasikala, Tmt. J. Elavarasi & V.N.
Sudhakaran (M/s Lakshmi Constructions),
225 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 358.70
1113 of Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram
opened on 13.9.1994 in the name of V.N.
Sudhakaran & Tmt. J. Elavarasi (M/s
Meadow Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd.,)
226 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 of C.A. No. 2,916.61
1095 of Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram
opened on 6.8.1994 in the name of Tmt. J.
Elavarasi & V.N. Sudhakaran (M/s M/s.
Riverway Agro Products (P) Ltd.)
227 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 in the BOM, 2,05,152.06
Anna Nagar (vide SB Acc. No. 5158) opened
on 28.2.1990 in the name of Selvi J.
Jayalalitha,
228 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 in the CBI of 3,84,760.67
Secunderabad in SB Acc. No. 20614 opened
on 19.5.1989 in the name of Selvi J.
Jayalalitha,
229 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 in the CBI of 2,34,000.00
Secunderabad in SB Acc. No. 23792 opened
on 29.1.1993 in the name of Tmt. N.
Sasikala,
296 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 in CDS-ITP 21,380.00
Acc. No. 32 of Selvi J. Jayalalitha in CBI, T.
Nagar Branch, Chennai,
300 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 in SB Acc. No. 17,502.98
38746 of CB, Kellys Branch opened on
30.12.1988 in the name of Tmt. N. Sasikala.

304 Cash balance as on 30.4.1996 in CA No. 5,10,968.16
1952 of CB, Mylapore of Namadhu MGR.
TOTAL 97,47,751.32

82.1) In proof of the above items, the prosecution
has marked the following documents:

Item Exhibits (P)
Nos.
True copy of statement of account of SB No. 4110
193 1138 in
Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram, Madras for Master
Vivek from September, 1994 to January, 1996;
Statement of account of CA No. 1134 of M/s
194 1318 Signora
Business Enterprises (P) Ltd., in Indian Bank,
Abhiramapuram Branch from 23.11.1994 to
7.5.1996;
True copy of statement of account of CA No. 1068
195 1117 in
Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram, Madras from March,
1994 to April, 1995 for M/s Fresh Mushrooms;

196 1324 Statement of account of CA No. 1107 of M/s. Lex
Ltd.
Property Development (P) , Property
Development (P) Ltd., in Indian Bank,
Abhiramapuram from 31.8.1994 to 7/1996;
197 1111 True extract of statement of account of V.N.
Sudhakaran in CA No. 1068 in Indian Bank,
Abhiramapuram Branch;
198 1382 Statement of account of CA No.2018 of A-1, dt.
1.4.1994 in Canara Bank, Mylapore from 1.7.1991
to
12.9.1999;
199 1109 True extract of statement of account of J. Elavarasi
in C.A. No. 1171 in Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram
Branch;
Xerox copy of statement of account of CA No.
200 1377 23832
of A-1 in Canara Bank, Mylapore from 16.4.1991 to
2.8.1999;
True extract of statement of account of CA No.
201 2081 2277
of M/s Metal King in Canara Bank, Mylapore from

11.11.1993 to 23.9.1996;
Statement of account of CA No. 2196 in the name
202 1519 of
A-2 in Canara Bank, Mylapore from 1.12.1992 to
30.11.1993
;
203 1903 Statement of account of CA No. 2047 of M/s Jaya
Publications in Canara Bank, Mylapore from
1.7.1991 to
11.9.1996;
204 1510 Statement of account of SB No. 23218 in the name
of A-2 in Canara Bank, Mylapore from 23.5.1990 to
28.4.1997;
205 2081 Statement of account.
206 1576 Statement of account of A-3of Acc. No. FGCA 2220
in Canara Bank, Mylapore from1.4.1994 to
10.4.1999;
207 1966 Statement of account of CA No. 1689 of Maha
Subhalakshmi Kalyana Mandapam in Canara Bank,
Anna Nagar (East) from 27.8.1993 to 31.12.1996;
Statement of account of V.N. Sudhakaran of SB
208 1572 Acc.
No. 24621 in Canara Bank, Mylapore from
25.2.1992
to
2.8.1999;
True extract of statement of account of Jaya
209 1106 Finance
Pvt., Ltd., in C.A. No. 1179 in Indian Bank,
Abhiramapuram Branch;
210 1618 Statement of account of A-4 in CA No. 2219 in
Canara Bank, Mylapore from7.4.1993 to 16.7.1996;
211 1613 Statement of account of A-4 in SB Acc. No. 25389
inCanara Bank, Mylapore from 23.1.1993 to
2.8.1999;
212 2031 Statement of account of CA No. 2133 of M/s Vinod
Video Vision in Canara Bank, Mylapore from
3.2.1992 to5.1.2000;
213 2088 True extract of statement of account of C.A. No.
2250 of M/s Anjaneya Printers Pvt., Ltd., in Canara
Bank, Mylapore from 29.7.1993 to
5.1.2000;
214 1940 Statement of account of CA No. 2061 of M/s Sasi
Enterprises in Canara Bank, Mylapore from
1.8.1991
to
18.10.1996;
True copy of statement of account of Jay Real
215 1160 Estate
in C.A. No. 1050 in Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram
Branch from 27.1.1994 to
31.3.1996;
216 1034 True copy of statement of account of Super Duper
TV Pvt., Ltd., in CA No. 1152 in Indian Bank,
Abhiramapuram Branch from January, 1995 to May,
1996;
217 1036 Pay-in-slip of Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram Branch,
Madras of Rs. 5,73,000/- to the credit of Super
Duper TV Pvt., Ltd., in CA No. 1152 by Ram
Vijayan,
dt. 22.2.1995;
218 1170 Statement of account of CA No. 1062 of JS Housing
Development in Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram
Branch from January, 1994 to September, 1997;
True copy of statement of account of CA No. 1058
219 1189 of
Green Farm Houses in Indian Bank,
Abhiramapuram Branch from 27.1.1994 to
21.7.1996;
220 1248 Statement of account of CA No. 1049 of Jaya
Contractors and Builders in Indian Bank,
Abhiramapuram Branch from 27.1.1994 to
31.3.1994;
221 1255 Statement of account of CA No. 1044 of Sasi
Enterprises in Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram Branch
from 14.7.1995 to
13.7.1996;
222 2016 Statement of A/c.
223 1974 Statement of A/c.
224 1980 Statement of A/c.
225 1266 Statement of account of CA No. 1113 of Meadow
Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd., in Indian Bank,
Abhiramapuram Branch from 13.9.1994 to
23.7.1995;
226 1298 Statement of account of CA No. 1095 of M/s
Riverway Agro Products (P) Ltd., in Indian Bank,
Abhiramapuram Branch from 6.8.1994 to
25.6.1996;
227 1560 Cheque for Rs. 399/- of Canara Bank, Mylapore in
favour of United India Insurance Co., by A-2 in CA
No. 2196, dt. 22.8.1995;
228 936 Statement of account of SB No. 20614 of Central
Bank of India, Secunderabad in the name of Ms.
Jayalalitha from 25.3.1991 to 2.5.1997;
229 937 Statement of account of SB No. 22792 Central Bank
of India, Secunderabad in the name of N. Sasikala
from 29.1.1993 to
17.9.1996;
300 975 True xerox copy of extract of SB Acc. No. 38671 of
Canara Bank, Kellys Branch, Madras in the name of
977 J. Jayalalitha;
True xerox copy of extract of SB Acc. No. 38746 of
Canara Bank, Kellys Branch, Madras in the name of
Mrs. Sasikala;

304 1635 Statement of account of M/s Namadhu MGR in CA
No. 1952 in Canara Banka, Mylapore from 1.7.1991
to 30.4.1996;

The learned Sessions Judge has discussed at para-
83 VIII) Vehicles pertaining to item Nos.230-257, 299.
The learned Sessions Judge has assessed the value of
about 40 vehicles. The costliest vehicle amongst these is
Mercedes Benz (TN-09/P-6565) and cost of the same is
Rs.9.15 Lakh. Total value amounts to Rs.1,29,94,033.05.
This amount is accepted.
Para-84 of the impugned judgment deals with IX)
Machineries pertaining to Item Nos.293, 294. PW.115 -
Mariyappan, employee of P.W.D. at the relevant time has
been examined in proof of the above items. According to
him, there were 55 machines in Anjaneya Printers (P) Ltd.,
and 19 machines in Metal King.
DW.89 - T. Ananthakrishnan, Manager of
M/s.Anjaneya Printers (P) Ltd., has deposed that the
Company were carrying on business of printing
Government school books, posters, brochures, AIADMK
Party's posters, books etc., Out of 37 machines available
in the said premises, 19 machineries were owned by M/s.
Anjaneya Printers (P) Ltd., and 15 machines were taken
on hire from Shastri Nuts, Plates Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd.,
and 3 machines were taken from Jaya Publications. This
witness has deposed regarding other machineries
purchased by M/s. Anjaneya Printers (P) Ltd., and through
this witness, the copies of the invoices dated 22.10.1993
came to be marked as Exs.D.236, D.237 and D.238.

Ex.D.236, D.237 and D.238 are dated 22.10.1993.
Though these invoices are stated to have been issued by
Uni Off-set Printers, Amar Enterprises and Ideal
Packaging, the signatures on the invoices appear to be
similar in all the three invoices leading to doubt their
authenticity. In Ex.D.236, even though number of
equipments are listed, a sum of Rs.6 lakh only is shown
against the cost of the generators and the cost of the
other machineries are not mentioned therein. There is
absolutely no material to show that items shown in these
invoices are delivered to M/s. Anjaneya Printers (P) Ltd.,
In order to persuade the Court to believe that these
invoices are authentic and the purchases made thereunder
are genuine, the learned Counsel for the accused has
referred to the bank statement relating to M/s. Anjaneya
Printers (P) Ltd., (A/c.No.2250) produced by the
prosecution, marked as Ex.P.2088 and it is emphatically
submitted that the amount shown in the said invoices are
duly paid to the said concerns as per the above statement
of accounts. But, the said Ex.P.2088 shows that the sum
of Rs.6,72,000/-, Rs.8,96,000/- and Rs.4,48,000/- are
paid to Uni Off-set Printers, Ideal Packaging, Amar
Enterprises on 23.09.2009. It is not the case of the
accused that, the payment for the machineries were made
in advance and thereafter the invoices were obtained for
the purchase of machineries. This goes to show that an
attempt is made to fabricate invoices corresponding to the
payments made to the aforesaid concern appearing to be
the purchase transactions.

Now coming to the payment of Rs.53 lakhs said to
have been made to Tamil Arasi Achagam as per the
invoice marked as Ex.D.276 (again a zerox copy), the
learned Counsel for the accused has relied on the
Ex.P.1226, wherein an entry dated 25.06.1994 reads that,
Rs.40,96,565/- is credited to the loan account of Tamil
Arasi by clearing the cheque bearing No.009. The said
cheque is marked as Ex.P.1238 and is seen to have been
drawn towards the repayment of loan account of Tamil
Arasi and Ex.P.1239, another cheque dated 22.6.1994 is
issued by M/s. Anjaneya Printers (P) Ltd., in the name of
Indian Bank A/c. Tamil Arasi. But as already stated, these
cheques are dated 22.6.94, but the invoice Ex.D.276 is
dated 28.05.1995 for Rs.53 lakhs. Though it is argued that
the amounts of the cheques Ex.P.1238 and P.1239 amount
to Rs.53 lakhs, the invoice Ex.D.276 dated 28.5.1995
cannot be co-related to the above cheque payments. This
invoice Ex.D.276 appears to have been got up later.

While appreciating the contention urged by the
accused, another important aspect to be taken note of is
that, the bank account of M/s. Anjaneya Printers(P) Ltd.,
was opened only on 23.01.1994 with a cash deposit of
Rs.501/-. The said C.A. No.1053 maintained by M/s.
Anjaneya Printers (P) Ltd., with Indian Bank, Abirampuram
Branch, contains the following credit entries.

Date : 23-01.94 - By Cash - Rs.15 lakhs
Date : 19.02.94 - Clearing - Rs. 34,000/-
Date : 25.06.94 - By Transfer - Rs. 13 lakhs.
- By Transfer - Rs. 4 lakhs.
- By Transfer - Rs. 18 lakhs.
Date : 01.07.94 - By Transfer - Rs. 13 lakhs.
Date : 30.12.94 - By MTL Loan
Sanction - Rs. 50 lakhs.
Date : 31.12.94 - By Transfer Rs. 20,75,000/-
- By CA 1104
transfer - Rs. 25 lakhs.
4.1.1995 - By Cash - Rs. 2,22,382/-
10.1.1995 - By O.D. 81 Rs.31,95,998/-

In the light of the above evidence, the documents
produced by DW.89 are analyzed, it is seen that, Ex.D.235
is the zerox copy of the certificate said to have been
issued by N. Nallamuttu, Dy. Inspector General of
registration confirming that, stamp paper bearing Sl. Nos.
4163 to 4166 and 4170 dated 5.7.98 were sold to Tr.
Vasudevan. The said document does not establish
anything. Ex.D.236 to D.238 are the zerox copies of the
invoices dated 22.10.1993 issued by Uni Off-set Printers,
Amar Enterprises and Ideal Packaging.These documents
are not proved in accordance with law either by producing
the copy of the invoices or by examining the persons who
issued the said invoices. As already stated above, DW.89
in the cross-examination has admitted that, after taking
the lease of the premises, M/s. Anjaneya Printers (P) Ltd.,
have purchased the machines from the above Company.
For all these reasons, the contention raised by the accused
is rejected.

At para-85 of the impugned judgment deals with
Footwear. The learned Sessions Judge has made
observation at para-85.2 as under:-

Though this evidence may suggest extravagant life
lead by the inmates residing at Door No.36, in the absence
of clear and definite evidence to show that the said 386
pairs of footwear found in the house were purchased by A-
1 and that, these footwear were exclusively worn by her,
A-1 cannot be fastened with the entire cost, especially
when it is brought out in the evidence that, in addition to
A-1, number of other persons including maids were
residing in the house. Prosecution has failed to prove that,
the above 386 pairs of footwear were in the possession of
A-1 alone. The nature of the property is such, the
possession by others cannot be ruled out. That apart, the
evidence led in by the prosecution is not sufficient to
determine the value of these footwear in the absence of the
nature and quality of the footwear, their make, brand and
the year of manufacture. Therefore, the entire amount
under this head is deducted.

At para-86 of the impugned judgment deals with
Sarees. The learned Sessions Judge at para-86.2 has
made the following observation:

Admittedly, no one has laid a claim to the sarees
seized from the house of A-1. Therefore, the argument of
the learned counsel that there is no evidence to show that
the seized sarees exclusively belonged to A-1 holds no
water. There is no dispute regarding the number of sarees
valued by PW.133. Though the number looks stupefying,
yet, it should not be forgotten that, prior to joining
politics, A-1 was in Cine field, therefore, there is nothing
unusual in having a taste for costly and fancy sarees by A-
1. In any case, there being no specific evidence that all
the sarees noted in the above observation mahazars were
purchased during the check period, it would not be safe to
hold that the sarees listed therein were acquired by A-1
during the check period. Hence the value shown under this
head cannot be allowed.

Para-87 of the impugned judgment deals with
Watches. PW.129 identified the seven wrist watches and
specified their valuation as under:

1. M.O.584 is Rs. 5,000/-
2. M.O.585 is Rs. 8,000/-
3. M.O.586 is Rs. 4,000/-
4. M.O.587 is Rs. 3,75,000/-
5. M.O.589 is Rs. 5,000/-
6. M.O.590 is Rs. 5,00,000/-
7. M.O.591 is Rs. 6,000/-

In the cross-examination it is elicited that he did not
bring with him either the goldsmith or the diamond
appraiser and he does not deal in gold and diamond
business. He cannot say in which year the above
mentioned wrist watches were manufactured. MO.585 is
manufactured by Christian Bernard Company. PW.129
answered that he does not sell this kind of wrist watches
in his Company. The Company which manufactures
MO.586 has sent the price list to PW.129. MO.589 was
manufactured by ROLEX Company in Switzerland. It chain
is made of 18 carat gold. In MO.587, 40 diamonds were
fixed. These kinds of wrist watches are not sold in India.
This witness further answered that his shop has the price
list of Rolex Company. MO.589 is RADO wrist watch is
made in Switzerland and PW.129 normally does not sell
RADO wrist watches. Likewise MO.590 is also made is
Switzerland and PW.129 does not have the pricelist of that
Company.

This witness was recalled for the second time on
13.12.2012 and it is elicited that he is not qualified to
assess the diamond and gold and he did not assess the
age of the watches and he does not know whether the
watches inspected by him were original or duplicate.

The learned Sessions Judge has observed at para-
87.3 as under:

Based on the above cross-examination the learned
Counsel for the A-1 has vehemently argued that, PW.129
having not dealt with the watches manufactured by ROLEX
and BADAK PHILIPI viz., MO.587 and MO.590, he is totally
incompetent to assess their value and therefore, the
valuation of Rs. 3,75,000/- and Rs. 5 lakhs respectively
fixed by this witness in respect of MOs. 587 and 590 are
liable to be discarded outright. That apart, this witness has
admitted in the cross-examination that he is neither a
goldsmith nor a diamond appraiser and therefore, the
valuation made by him on the basis of the diamonds
alleged to have been contained therein cannot be
accepted. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the
evidence of PW.129 is silent with regard to the year of
manufacture which is crucial for determining the price of
the watches and more importantly, prosecution has not
positively established that A-1 acquired these watches
during the check period. It is the submission of the learned
Counsel that if in fact these watches were manufactured
during the check period, the prosecution could have
procured the brochure or the price list from the Company
which would have ruled out the possibility of A-1
possessing the said watches prior to the check period.
Therefore, it is the submission of the learned Counsel that
in the absence of any such evidence, solely on the basis of
the oral testimony of PW.129 whose evidence cannot be
treated that of an expert; A-1 cannot be called upon to
explain the exorbitant valuation shown by the prosecution
under this head.
As the learned Counsel for the accused has raised
serious objection regarding the valuation of MOs. 587 and
590, it may be necessary to refer to the description of
these two articles in MO.739 which reads as follows:

"4 - Rolex Ladies 18k - Rs.3,75,000/-(18
carat gold-750)
"Oyster perpetual Date just
Superlative Chronometic officially
certified" Automatic Date, Beoyel
set in 40 real Diamonds and 10
real diamonds on dial with 18k
bracelet center second wrist
Watch.

Reference Numbers:

Back (Model) reference 69000A
Caliber No : 2135
Movement No : 1870313
Serial No : 69138 (12 side)
Serial No : E 315884 (6 side)
Serial No : E 315884 also hand

Engraved inside the back.
Bracelet No : 68B
Hand engraved number inside the back SIS/95

6. Patek Phillipe Ladies W/watch 18k
- Rs. 5,00,000. (18 carat gold) white
enamel dial with
Black roman figures case
surrounded by real diamonds in
3 rows with 18k Bracelet.
Diamond on button.
Back ref : 2941003 - 4831/1
Caliber E15, Movement No:
1619138"

87.5) Regarding the valuation of 91 wrist watches
valued at Rs. 6,87,350/-, the prosecution has examined
one Sri.Maran, working in the Sales and Repair Division in
BRR and Sons as PW.130. This witness has deposed that,
he has experience in assessing the value of wrist watches;
he has studied the manufacturing of wrist watches and
wall clocks in Guindy ITI. On 18.12.1996 he assessed the
91 wrist watches in the presence of the Inspector Mr.
Shankar and the witnesses Sri. Ponnuswamy and Sri.
Armugam. A note of proceeding was prepared as per
Ex.P.740 and he has subscribed his signature thereto.
According to him, the total value of 91 wrist watches
assessed by him is Rs. 6,87,350/-. During his evidence he
has identified these wrist watches as MOs.682 to 741 and
has specified their make and the price. Further, this
witness has deposed that, he deals with TITAN, HMT and
ACCURATE watches in his shop and therefore he knows
the price ofthose watches and in respect of other watches,
he came to know the price through the customers who had
come to his shop for repair of such watches

In the cross-examination it is elicited that he cannot
say in which year the assessed watches were
manufactured and further he answered that he assessed
the value of the watches manufactured by TITAN, HMT and
ACCURATE on the basis of the price list and in respect of
the watches manufactured by other companies, he
assessed them only from his experience.
87.6) The testimony of this witness is also assailed
by the learned Counsel for the accused on the ground that
his testimony is inadmissible for the reason that this
witness cannot be termed as an expert as he has admitted
that he determined the price of the watches on the basis
of the price disclosed by his customers and therefore no
credence could be given to the testimony of this witness
and it has to be held that, PW.130 has no expertise or
competency whatsoever to fix the valuation of these
watches, as a result Ex.P.740 as well as the oral evidence
adduced by the prosecution in proof of the valuation of the
wrist watches is liable to be discarded in entirety.

87.7) From the above evidence, prosecution has
proved that, these watches were in the possession of A-1.
It is not the case of A-1 that these watches belong to any
other persons. In order to substantiate the charge u/Sec.
13(1)(e) of the Act, the prosecution must prove the nature
and extent of the pecuniary resources or property which
are found in possession of the accused. Once this
ingredient is established, the burden of satisfactorily
accounting for the possession of such resource shifts to
the accused. Though the standard of proof may not be as
heavy as on the prosecution, yet, the explanation offered
must be reasonable and plausible. In the instant case, A-1
has not offered any explanation with regard to the
possession of the said watches. There is absolutely no
mention whatsoever about the acquisition of these costly
watches in her wealth returns. A-1 did not offer any
explanation at the earliest point of time that these watches
were purchased by her prior to the check period. Under
the said circumstance, the only inference that could be
drawn is that, A-1 purchased these watches during the
check period.

87.8) PW.129 and PW.130 have given objective
assessment of the watches and have furnished the basis
on which they arrived at the rate of the watches which is
not shown to be false by producing the purchase bills or
any other contra evidence to doubt or disbelieve their
evidence. Hence, relying on the evidence of the above
witnesses, the entire valuation is accepted.

Para 87.9 of the impugned judgment deals with
tabular column of assets as on 30.4.1996 as under:

Nature of
assets Item Nos. Value (in Rs.)
I Immovable 1-173, 175, 292, 297, 301, 20,07,80,246.00
properties 302(i), 305
(consideration, Less: Item Nos.1-17
cost of regn) Rs.37,00,579
Less: Item No 21,
Rs.2,98,144
Less: Item Nos.72-74
Rs.3,35,000

II Cash paid over & 24, 31, 33, 64, 66, 127, 1,58,30,619.00
Above sale 145, 150, 159
consideration Less: Item No.64 Rs.4,65,000
Less: Item No.66 Rs.4,85,000
Less: Item No.150
Rs.10,00,000
Less: Item No.159
Rs.76,00,000

III New or additional 174, 176-192, 301, 302(ii) 22,53,92,344.00
Less: 20% of the total
construction of estimate.
buildings Rs.5,63,48,086

Gold & Diamond
IV Jewellery 284-290, 295 2,51,59,144.00

V Silver wares 291 20,80,000.00

VI F.Ds and shares 258-277, 298, 303, 306 3,42,62,728.00

VII Cash balance in 193-229, 296, 300, 304 97,47,751.32

bank accounts

VIII Vehicles 230-257, 299 1,29,94,033.05

IX Machinery 293, 294 2,24,11,000.00

X Footwear 278 000

XI Sarees 279-281 000

XII Wrist watches 282-283 15,90,350.00

TOTAL Rs.55,02,48,215.00

The learned Sessions Judge has observed at para-
88.8 that in order to establish the transaction in question is
benami, the prosecution could either prove the fact by
direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence leading to the
inference of that fact. If prosecution is able to prove that
there could not have been any other source than the
accused himself, offence can be brought home against him.
Normal human conduct and presumptions can be utilized
for this purpose.

The prosecution has included the properties acquired
by the following companies to the account of A-1. The
companies are:
(a) M/s. Lex Property Development (P) Ltd.,
(b) Meadow Agro Farms (Pvt) Ltd.,
(c) Riverway Agro Products (Pvt) Ltd.,
(d) M/s. Ramaraj Agro Mills Ltd.,
(e) M/s. Signora Business Enterprises (P) Ltd.,
(f) Indo Doha Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals
Pvt. Ltd.,

The learned Sessions Judge has observed in respect
of the Lex Property Development Pvt. Ltd as under:

A perusal of the evidence of PW.182 PW.177,
PW.132 PW.127 PW.100 PW.94 and PW.51 coupled with
Exs.P.135, P.136, P.569 to P.574, P.647 to P.650, P.717,
P.744 to P.763 and P.1005 to P.1008 reveal that M/s. Lex
Property Developments Pvt. Ltd., was incorporated under
the
Companies Act, 1956
on 25.09.1990 with registration
No.18-19704 of 1990 with the main objects to carry on the
business of proprietors of land, flats, shops, dwelling
houses, industrial estates, commercial complexes and to
acquire by purchase, lease, exchange, rent or otherwise
deal in lands and buildings and any estates and to carry on
the business of builders machinery, engineers, general
construction and contractors. As per Memorandum of
Association Ex.P.568 the company was started by
Sri.S.Sreenivasalu Reddy and P.V.Ravikumar as the
promoters and the directors of the said company. Initially,
the registered office of the company was at No.120,
Theyagaraja Road, T.Nagar, Madras which was later
changed to No.27, Lake Area, Nungambakkam, Chennai
and later to Flat No.A-8, Thomas Road, T.Nagar, by filing
Form No.32 as per Ex.P.569.

PW-114 Ravi Kumar has deposed that, he along
with Srinivasa Reddy started Lex Property Development
(P) Ltd., He had invested Rs.1,000/- and Srinivasa Reddy
had invested Rs. 4,500/-. They opened Current A/c. in
Indian Bank at Peter's Road. In 1991 Subbirama Reddy
was elected as an M.P. and stayed at Delhi. So, he could
not commence the business. In June, 1993 he wanted to
change the company to his friends. So, he handed over
the companies documents and unused cheques to
Sudhakar Reddy, who was with Subbarama Reddy. This
witness further deposed that, after sometime, Sudhakar
Reddy gave him a cheque for Rs.1,000/- and another
cheque for Rs.4,500/- in the name of Srinivas Reddy. This
witness unequivocally stated before the Court as under;

"We did not buy any properties in the name
ofthat Company. Either myself or Srinivas
Reddy did not buy any properties in the
name of that Company at No.149, TTK Road
and No.1 Wallace Garden, 1st Street."

He identified his signature on Ex.P.573 and P.574.
i.e., copies of Memorandum of Association and Articles of
Association of M/s. Lex Property Development (P) Ltd.,.
The testimony of this witness is not controverted in the
cross-examination. Instead, his testimony finds suitable
corroboration in the testimony of PW.96.

In the annexure to the auditor's report, it is further
stated that the company does not have any fixed assets
and the company had neither taken nor given any loans
from / to companies, firms or other parties and the
company has not accepted deposits from the public. It is
also declared that the proper books of account as required
by law have been kept by the company. In the balance
sheet of the relevant year as on 31.03.1994 the current
assets of the company are declared as under;

Land under development :

Cost of Land including Regn. : Rs. 5,70,040/-

Demolition Fee : Rs. 16,030/-
Property tax : Rs. 3,915/-
Total : Rs. 57,19,985/ -

89.5) The above documents establish that though
the company was started in 1990, it did not commence
any profit making activities till the year ending March,
1994 except acquiring an immovable property at No.149,
T.T.K.Road, I Cross Road, Sriramnagar, Madras. Form
No.32 - Notice discloses that the original directors viz., Mr.
S. Sreenivasalu Reddy and P.V.Ravikumar resigned from
the board on 29.08.1994 and A-2 and A-3 were appointed
as additional directors of the company on 17.08.1994.

According to the prosecution, after A-3 and A-4
assumed the Directorship of the aforesaid company,
number of properties were purchased in the name of the
company. During trial, the prosecution has got marked the
copies of the two sale deeds dated 28.12.1994 (Ex.P.135
and Ex.P.136) executed by Mrs. A. Arifa Amanuallah W/o.
M.O.Amanuallah in favour of Lex Prperty Developments
Private Limited in respect of the land measuring 11 cents
with building comprised in Survey No.74/1 Old No.152 and
152-A situate in Nilangari Village, Saidapet Taluk,
M.G.R.District respectively. In proof of the said sale deeds,
the prosecution has examined PW.51 the husband of the
vendor who has deposed that his father-in-law purchased
the aforesaid property in the name of his wife and they
built a house therein by spending Rs.11.00 lakhs. A-2 and
A-3 agreed to purchase the said lands for Rs.25.00 lakhs
and paid Rs. 10.00 lakhs in cash and the remaining
Rs.15.00 lakhs was paid by means of two D.Ds for
Rs.6,80,000/- and Rs.8,20,000/-. According to PW.51, the
Sub-Registrar was brought to his house and his wife
executed Ex.P.135 and P.136 before the Registrar.
Through this witness, the prosecution has got marked
Ex.P.135 and Ex.P.136. Though this witness is cross-
examined regarding the payment of Rs.10.00 lakhs in
cash, the accused have not disputed the execution and
registration of Ex.P.135 and P.136. It is evidenced in these
sale deeds that consideration of Rs.6,08,000/- and
Rs.8,20,000/- was paid to the vendor by means of demand
drafts detailed therein.

In his evidence, PW.100 has stated that
Raghavendra Builders and Constructions entered into
separate agreement with M/s. Lex Property Developments
to construct the buildings and in the transaction the
cheques amounting to Rs.30,05,080/- for the two
apartments were given in the name of Raghavendra
Builders and Constructions.

89.8) Though it is the contention of the accused that
Lex Property Development Pvt. Ltd., is an independent
entity and the accused do not have anything to do with the
said company which is governed by the provisions of the

Companies Act
, the evidence of PW.132 and the
documents marked through this witness viz., Ex.P.743 to
P.764 indicate that few months after A-3 and 4 took over
the company as the Directors, A-2, A-3 and A-4 formed
several partnerships along with the aforesaid Lex Property
Developments Pvt. Ltd., as one of the partners. PW.132
who was working as District Registrar in Central Chennai
District from 26.08.1993 to May 1995 has deposed before
the Court that, on 06.02.1995 he registered the following
firms viz.,

Name of the
Firm Names of Partners Principal Place of
Business
Vigneswara 1. V.N. Sudhagaran Shop No.21,
Builders 2. N. Sasikala Wellington Plaza,
3. J. Elavarasi Mount Road, Madras.
4. M/s. Lex Property
Development Pvt. Ltd.,
Lakshmi -do- -do-
Constructions.
Gopal Promoters -do- -do-
Sakthi -do- -do-
Constructions
Namasivaya -do- -do-
Housing
Developments
Ayyappa Property -do- -do-
Developments
Sea Enclave -do- -do-
Navasakthi -do- -do-
Contractors&
Builders
Oceanic -do- -do-
Constructions
GreenGarden -do- -do-
Apartments
A.P.Advertising -do- -do-
services

89.9) As could be seen from Ex.P.745 to P.760 all
these firms were registered on the same day i.e.,
15.02.1995 and on behalf of M/s. Lex Property
Developments Ltd., A-4 N. Sudhakaran has signed the
application as one of the directors of the Company.

89.10) PW.177 Shanmugha Sundaram, the Deputy
General Manager of Indian Bank at the relevant time has
spoken about the loan availed by M/s. Lex Property
Development Pvt. Ltd., The prosecution has produced the
original request made by the Lex Property Development
Pvt. Ltd., for grant of finance for construction of marriage
Hall at No.149, 150 TTK Road as per Ex.P.1328, marked
through PW.182. A-3 hassigned this letter requesting for a
loan of Rs.133.00 lakhs as project cost and Rs.24.00 lakhs
towards the term loan to fund the constructions of the
marriage hall. In the letter According to this witness a
letter dated 22.09.1994 was received from Abirampuram
Indian Bank, Branch to the Regional Office to give long
term loan of Rs.133.00 lakhs and term loan of
Rs.24,00,000/- to Lex Property Development Pvt Ltd., as
per Ex.P.1005. Ex.P.1006 is the recommendation letter of
the Branch Manager. These documents were sent from
Regional office to Zonal office and the Regional Office sent
a letter dated 15.11.1994 to Zonal Manager with
recommendation as per Ex.P.1007.
89.11) It is interesting to note that though
Ex.P.1005 is said to be application for advance, it is not
signed by the applicants or any one on their behalf. As per
this document, M/s. Lex Property Developments Pvt. Ltd.,
is shown as the applicant and the address is shown as Dr.
Thomas Road, T. Nagar, Madras and A-3 and A-4 as the
Directors of the said firm carrying on the business of
property promoters at No.149 and TTK Road, Madras. The
purpose of the loan is shown as foracquiring property at
No.150 TTK Road and for construction of marriage hall and
to settle the loan to the tune of Rs.60.00 lakhs. In the
comments it is notedthat the company has not ventured
into any project since inception and as against the
authorized capital of Rs.5.00 lakhs, the paid up capital
remains at Rs.5,500/- and the tangible net worth is
negative. In spite of it, the Asst. General Manager is seen
to have sanctioned a term loan of Rs.133.00 lakhs to the
said concern repayable in 28 equal quarterly installments
with interest at 17.75% as per Ex.P.1008. This sanction
letter is dated 15.03.1995 and it is mentioned therein that
the amount of Rs.45,00,000/- already released by the
Branch is to be absorbed in this loan.

89.13) Ex.P.1320 discloses that, the C.A. No.1107
was opened in the name of M/s. Lex Property
Development (P) Ltd., only on 31.08.1994. The application
Ex.P.1320 is signed by A-3 in his capacity as the Director.
The application bear the seal of the Company. The account
extract is at Ex.P.1324. The entries therein reveal the
following cash deposit or transfer of money to this
account.

25.09.1994 - Rs. 45 lakhs
01.10.1994 - Rs. 10 lakhs.
29.12.1994 -Rs.13 Lakhs
(By CA 1095 transfer)
28.03.1995 - Rs. 22 lakhs (By drafts)
15.04.1995 - Rs. 15 lakhs
21.04.1995 - Rs. 19,99,980/-
14.07.1995 - Rs. 5 lakhs (By OMTL)
25.07.1995 - Rs. 7 lakhs (by OMTL)
01.08.1995 - Rs. 3 lakhs (by OMTL)
22-09.1995 - Rs. 15 lakhs (by OMTL)
12.10.1995 - Rs. 50 lakhs (by drafts)

And on the same day, Rs. 20 lakhs has been
withdrawn. From this account, a sum of Rs.10,75,000/-is
seen to have been debited to the account of Riverway
Agro Products (Pvt) Ltd., on 17.11.1994 and on the same
day, Rs.28 lakhs are withdrawn by A-3. On 25.09.1994 a
DD for Rs.37 lakhs is seen to have been taken and on the
same day, Rs.7.5 lakhs are withdrawn by self cheque.

89.14) Thus, it could be seen that the activities
relating to the acquisition of immovable properties and
construction of structures commenced only during the
tenure of A-3 and A-4 as the Directors of this Company. At
the relevant point of time, A-3 and A-4 were in control and
management of the affairs of the Company. The above
evidence points out that, even though the Company was
incorporated in 1990, the Bank A/c. was opened only after
A-3 and A-4 took reign of the Company and all the
transactions have taken place through Bank account
opened by A-3. Except the use of the name of the
Company, there is nothing on record to show that the
funds of the erstwhile Company or its Directors are utilized
for acquisition of these assets.

As per Ex.P.572 A-3 and A-4 resigned from the
board of Lex Property Developments Pvt Ltd., on
04.03.1996.
The learned Sessions Judge has observed in respect
of the Meadow Agro Farms Ltd., as under:

90. As per the evidence of PW.94 R. Lakshmi
Narayana, P.A. to the Company Registrar, Meadow Agro
Farms Pvt., Ltd., was registered in the office of the
Company Registrar on 11.10.1990 with Registration
No.19758/1990 (vide Ex.P594 - Certificate of
Registration). The promoters of the company were Krishna
Kumar Reddy and Anil Kumar Reddy. This witness has
further deposed that a Form No. 32 was submitted by A-3
V.N. Sudhakaran on 26.5.1995 furnishing the particulars
of appointment of the aforesaid Krishna Kumar Reddy and
Anil Kumar Reddy as additional Directors. As per Ex. P-
599, A-3 and A-4 were appointed as Addl. Directors with
effect from 3.8.1994 and they resigned from the Board on
6.3.1996 and 11.3.1996 respectively as per the (Form
No.32, dt. 28.5.1996 vide Ex. P-601).
90.1) PW-97 Anil Kumar Reddy has stated that, he
and Krishnakumar Reddy started an office by name
Meadow Agro Farms (Pvt) Ltd., at No.5, I Street, Subba
Rao Avenue, Numgambakkam in 1990. They took 250
shares each. They started the Company with the idea
ofdoing real estate business in agricultural lands, but they
did not have sufficient funds. In 1993, Subbarama Reddy,
Ex-Parliamentary Member asked him whether they were
interested to sell the Company. In 1994, he asked them to
come over to his office and took their signatures in some
printed forms and paid them Rs.2,500/- each by cheques.
This witness further deposed that the files related to
Meadow Agro Farms (Pvt) Ltd., were handed over to
Sudhakaran Reddy. The cheque given to him was signed
by Elavarasi and within a week therefrom, Meadow Agro
Farms (Pvt) Ltd., office was changed to different address.
This witness identified the signatures on Ex.P.595 and
P.596 and further stated that after subscribing their
signatures, they did not continue with the Meadow Agro
Farms (Pvt) Ltd.,

90.2) The aforesaid Krishna Kumar Reddy is
examined as PW 106. He has also deposed in line with
PW.97 and has specifically stated that, "After we soldthe
company, I do not have any possession. For the company
transaction, I received Rs. 2,500/- through a cheque". He
further deposed that, "During this transaction, he signed
the blank Forms and gave it to Sudhakar Reddy". He
admitted his signature in Exs. P.660 and P.559. In the
cross-examination by A-1, it is elicited that he sold the
company to Subbirama Reddy.

90.3) Various sale deeds executed in the name of
Meadow Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd., are also produced in
evidence and the corresponding witnesses to prove these
documents are examined.

90.8) This witness has also deposed about the
preparation of the power of attorneys Ex.P.191 to P.196
and the sale deed executed on the strength of the said
power of attorneys as per Ex.P.197 dated 15.03.1995 in
favour of Maedows Agro Farms ltd., for Rs.54,050/-.
Further this witness has deposed that on the strength of
the power of attorney Ex.P.206 executed by its vendors,
he executed the sale deed in favour of Maedow Agro
Farms Ltd., on 29.04.1995 as per Ex.P.207 and on the
strength of the power of attorneys Ex.P.208 to 213, he
executed the sale deed in respect of 15.71 acres of land
on 29.04.1995. It is the further evidence of PW.56 that on
the strength of the power of attorneys Ex.P.215 to P.220,
he executed a sale deed in favour of Maedow Agro Farms
Ltd., on 09.06.1995 as per Ex.p.221. According to this
witness, "all the above documents were registered in the
office of the North Chennai Sub-Registrar before D.I.G.
and the expenses for the documents were borne by
Sudhakaran on behalf of the Maedow Agro Farms Ltd.,"
Thus, according to PW.56, under the above sale deeds he
sold 105.99½ acres of land and received a total sale price
of Rs.10.60 lakhs.
In the cross-examination he denied the suggestion
that A-3 Sudhakaran has not given him Rs.3.00 lakhs as
advance. The evidence of this witness regarding the
execution of the various sale deeds mentioned above on
the strength of the power of attorneys executed in his
favour are not at all challenged in the cross-examination.

90.9) PW.159 Thiru Rajagopalan is examined to
speak regarding the registration of the sale deeds marked
in evidence as Exs.P.68, 69, 70, 75 to 79, 96 to 110, 122
to 125, 135 to 139, 143 to 148, 153 to 156, 161, 165,
167, 174, 180, 184, 190, 197, 207, 214, 221, 291, 324,
330, 339, 345, 350, 357, 363, 366, 377, 388, 396, 408,
419, 431, 443, 450, 456, 467, 472, 477, 488, 513, 515,
771, 717, 772, 905, 906, 907, 908, 909, 910, 911, 912
and 913.

DW.86 has got marked Exs.D187 and D189.
Ex.D.189 copy of the returns is seen to have been filed
only on 19.04.2001. The copy of the Balance Sheet for the
year ending 31.03.1996 is marked as Ex.D.188, the copy
of the schedule to the annual returns as Ex.D.189 and it is
stated that, the said schedule contains the list of who
contributed the share capital amounting to
Rs.1,06,55,000/-, but the names of none of the accused
finds place in Ex.D.189. This witness has further deposed
that the balance sheet filed by M/s. Meadow Agro Farms
(Pvt) Ltd., would show that the Company had invested
Rs.21,53,738/- on fixed assets viz., land and sum of
Rs.21,09,000/- on shares in other companies. The said
schedule also would indicate that the Company had lent
Rs.32,90,000/- to A.2 Sasikala and Rs.62,50,000/- to M/s.
Jaya Publications. The returns itself having been filed in
the year 2000, this document could not have been filed in
3.4.1998, nor is there anything to show that R. Kumar and
A.Jayaraman were the Directors of Meadow Agro Farms
(Pvt) Ltd., at the relevant point of time. All these
circumstances go to show that, these documents are got
up to support of the false defence set up by the accused.
Ex.D.189 also does not improve the case of the accused,
nor does it inspire confidence to accept the contents of the
said document in as much as this schedule to the annual
return is seen to have been filed before the R.O.C. only on
19.04.2001 as could be seen from the seal of the
Company.

90.19) Ex.D.190 is said to be the note order passed
by the Income Tax Authorities on the return of income
filed by M/s. Meadow Agro Farms (Pvt) Ltd., It is not
known under what provision of law, such an order could be
passed and what is the evidentiary value thereof. It is
interesting to note that in the said note, the Directors are
shown as (1) K. Krishnakumar Reddy and (2) K. Anil
Kumar Reddy. As already stated above, PW.106
Sri.Krishnakumar Reddy has unequivocally has stated
before the Court that, he and the other Director signed
certain forms in 1994 and sold the Company and they are
not in possession of the Company. Ex.P.601 produced by
the prosecution unimpeachably establishes that both the
said Directors have resigned on 03.08.1994. But, curiously
they are shown as the Directors of the Company on the
date of the order i.e., 30.03.2000, which itself is sufficient
to discard the document as unreliable. Even otherwise, the
contents of the said document do not advance the defence
set up by A-3. In the said order it is noted that the
Company had practically no business activities since its
inception and had not filed any return of income and for
the assessment year 1996-97 also, the assessee did not
file any return of income and is is only after notices were
issued, the return of income came to be filed on
29.03.2000 admitting NIL income.
90.20) What turns out from the above evidence is
that, even though the Company was registered as back as
in 1990, it had no business activities whatsoever, until the
Company was taken over by A-3 and A-4. Secondly, the
Company was not assessed to Income Tax. The
documents produced by the accused are seen to have
come into existence only after the year 2000. According to
the accused, during the investigation, the premises of
Meadow Agro Farms (Pvt) Ltd., were searched and all the
documents and records pertaining to the Company were
seized. If so, the Company could not have filed the returns
without there being proper records to support the return.
Even though much has been argued that the Company had
its own resources, the accused has not been able to
produce even the bank account statement standing in the
name of the Company to justify the contention that the
properties registered in the name of the Company were
purchased out of the funds of the Company. On the other
hand, the direct evidence produced by the prosecution
clinchingly establishes that the entire funds for the
purchase of the properties emanated from the accused
and the said properties were never treated as the
properties of the Company.

The learned Sessions Judge has observed in respect
of theRiverway Agro Products Pvt. Ltd as under:

91. PW-96 Raghuram has deposed that in 1990, he
and Prabhakar Reddy started a Partnership Company
called Riverway Agro Products (Pvt) Ltd., but no business
or transaction was being done. Subbarama Reddy
suggested to sell the concern. In June, 1994, Prabhakar
Reddy and he went to Subbaramu Reddy's office and
signed some papers for transfer of the Company in the
names of Sudhakaran and Elavarasi and they gave them
Rs.2,000/- each in the form of two cheques. The cheque
received by him was signed by Sudhakaran. Through this
witness the prosecution has marked Ex.P.576 and P.577,
the certified copies of Memorandum of Association and
Articles of Association. Even in the cross-examination he
reiterated that when he signed the forms, the name of
V.N.Sudhakaran and Elavarasi were mentioned therein.

The evidence of PW.94 - R. Laxmi Narayanan, the
Personal Assistant to Company Registrar reveals that
Ex.P579 - Form No.32 was submitted appointing
V.N.B.Sharma and V.Babu as additional directors. On
21.07.1994 another Form No.32 was submitted stating
that V.N.Sudhakaran and Elavarasi were appointed as
additional directors on 15.07.1994. This witness has
further deposed that, Raghuram and Prabhakar Reddy
resigned from the Directors post from 18.07.1994 and
w.e.f. 10.08.1994.

The other details of the money deposited into this
Current A/c. no.1095 are as under;
Pay-in-slip Date Person signed in the slip Cash amount
No. and the address given Rs.
Ex.P.1301 03.12.94 M. Jayaraman, 36, 22,41,000
Poes Garden, Chennai-
86.
Ex.P.1302 07.01.95 M. Jayaraman 15,00,000
Ex.P.1303 10.01.95 M.Jayaraman 25,00,000
Ex.P.1304 12.01.95 M.Jayaraman No.36, 25,00,000
Poes Garden, Chennai-
Ex.P.1305 25.04.95 Ram Vijayan, 21, First 19,00,000
Floor, 91, Anna Salai,
Chennai-2.
Ex.P.1306 27.04.95 No details of the 20,00,000
remittee
Ex.P.1307 28.04.95 Ram vijayan, 21, Fist 19,90,000
Floor, 91, Anna Salai,
Chennai-2
Ex.P.1308 23.05.94 Dr. S.Radha, No.90, 6,28,600
Anna Salai, Chennai.
(Signature is not clear)

91.3) This witness has also spoken about the money
transferred to this account from various other accounts as
under;

Date Details of Transfer Amount Rs.
24.09.94 By Transfer 10,00,000
26.10.94 By Transfer 3,00,000
By Transfer from Current
17.11.94 a/c.1107 10,75,000
09.08.95 By Transfer 4,00,000
02.02.96 By Transfer from current a/c.1050 96,000
20.02.96 By Transfer from current a/c.1058 5,000
24.02.96 By Transfer from current a/c.1054 25,000

01.03.96 By Transfer from current a/c.1054 6,000

31.03.96 By Transfer from current a/c.1054 22,000

14.04.96 By Transfer from current a/c.1054 10,000
A
18.04.96 By Transfer from current a/c.1058 25,000

12.08.94 By draft 75,000

According to PW.74, as per Ex.P.323 an undivided
extent of 5.53 acres of land at Sirakulam was sold by
Nachiar Ammal and Agastyer in favour of Riverway Agro
Products Pvt. Ltd., for Rs.16,600/-. This witness has
deposed that, as per the guidelines, the value of the
Survey No.490/3A1 in 1994 was Rs.26,000/- per acre.
Sale deeds were execution for 5½ acres of land in favour
of Riverway Agro Products Pvt.Ltd., for RS.16,600/-.
But, as per the Orders on I.A. 321, PW.71 was
recalled by the learned PP and was specifically asked as to
which of the two versions given by him before the court
are correct, for which PW 71 answered that the statement
given by him in his examination-in-chief and the cross-
examination in2001 are correct. In the cross-examination
by the defence counsel, the witness denied that he had
misused his official power and answered that the
government has not taken any action against him for the
alleged misuse of his official power and he did not
complain against anyone that he should compel to speak
before the court.

PW.76 is a Real Estate Agent has stated that
likewise, on different dates, he got registered the power of
attorneys in his name for Rs.1167.57 acres of land for a
total amount of Rs.23,34,040/-. Rs.5,84,000/- was given
to the local brokers.
In the cross-examination this witness has answered
that he is not an income tax assessee and since he
received the commission of only Rs.100/- per acre, he did
not find it necessary to file income tax returns. He
maintained in the cross-examination that apart from
Rajagopal and A-3, a party from Kerala and other
prospective buyers had also approached him regarding the
land which was sold to Riverway Agro Products Private Ltd.,
PW.76 was also subjected to grueling cross-
examination in installments commencing from 14.02.2001
to 21.02.2001. This witness was recalled on 28.01.2003 at
the instance of the accused and during the further cross-
examination on behalf of A-1, 2 and 4, this witness
substantially prevaricated from his earlier statements and
stated on oath that pursuant to the advertisement given
by him in 'Dinathand' and 'Hindu' one Krishnan, an
accountantfrom Riverway Agro Products Pvt. Ltd.,
approached him and his friends regarding the sale of lands
and he and his friends doing the real estate business
approached the land owners and got the power of
attorneys and executed the sale deeds in favour of
Riverway Agro Products Pvt. Ltd., During his evidence
PW.76 deposed that, land owners gave commission for
him and other brokers and he did not receive an other
commission. He further deposed that, he did not have any
contact with Thiru Rajagopal, District Registrar and he did
not know PW.71 Radhakrishnan He also asserted that he
did not know Sudhakaran, has only heard his name. He
also resiled from his earlier statement that he had
informed Rajagopal, District Registrar about the
availability of the land and they had been to Tirunelveli.
He denied that on 8th and 9th July 1994 Thiru Rajagopal
introduced Sudhakaran to him at Thirunelveli. He also
denied having visited Thirunelveli along with the said
Rajagopal and maintained that all the transactions were
carried out at the instance of Krishnan, accountant of M/s.
Riverway Agro Products Pvt. Ltd., Further, he denied
having made a statement "the brokers whobought and
gave the land to me ending with that "Rajagopal,
Jayalalitha, Sasikala and sudakaran are only purchasing
those lands." Further, this witnessstated on oath that, on
07.09.1997 when he came to his residence, he was
threatened by Nallamma Naidu and therefore, he had
given false evidence before the Court. 76He further
deposed that, during his first enquiry, the police officers
related to this case compelled him to tell the names of the
accused who were not connected with the case regarding
the dealings.

91.16) Pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India, the prosecution recalled this
witness for further examination and in the course of the
reexamination held on 19.01.2011, the learned Spl.P.P.
specifically put a question to the witness as under;

Q: In your evidence in the first instance
before the Chennai court you have given
evidence regarding the negotiations resulting
in execution of sale deeds and power of
attorneys but later in 2003 after you were
recalled you have given contradictory
statements. Which of the two versions is true
and correct?
A: The version given by me in the first
instance is true and correct.

91.17) The witness was permitted to be cross-
examined by the defence and in the cross-examination, it
was asked to the witness that, even in the cross-
examination also he had stated the truth for which he
replied that he had signed the cross-examination, but he
did not know the contents thereof. He denied the
suggestion that in his re-examination he has given false
evidence at the instance of the police.

Notwithstanding the prevarication by the witness,
the sequence of events narrated by him with regard tothe
circumstances surrounding the execution and registration
of the various sale deeds have remained unshaken. Even
otherwise, the contemporaneous documents spoken to by
this witness lend full credence to the testimony of this
witness regarding his involvement in the procurement of
the properties at the instance of A-3. More importantly,
what turns out from the evidence of the above witnesses
is that, the so called Riverway Agro Products Pvt. Ltd., was
no way in the picture and the funds of the said Company
were not utilized for the purchase and registration of these
properties.
The learned Sessions Judge has observed in respect
of the Ramaraj Agro Mills Ltd., as under:

PW.52 Gandhi has deposed that he and Ramaraj
Agro Mills Ltd, had bought 6,10,000/- shares at the rate of
Rs. 5/- per share. He could not get proper income from
the said mill and decided to sell it. In 1994, Ramaswamy
Udayar brought Sudhakaran to them and asked them to
sell the mill. They negotiated and agreed to sell it at the
rate of Rs. 3/- per share. Sudhakaran, Sundaravadanan,
Ilavarasi and Prabha took over the Board of Management
and in all 6,18,000 shares were bought by them.

PW.90 Tmt. Sheela Balakarishnan, Secretary in
Employee and Admn. Reforms Dept., has deposed that
Ramaraj Agro Mills Ltd., took assistance from SPICOT. The
Chairman of Ramaraj Agro Mills Ltd., Mr. Gandhi wrote a
letter to the Managing Director of SPICOT Company as per
Ex.P-541 informing that V.N. Sudhakaran and J. Elavarasi
were appointed as Joint Directors of the said Firm. The
existing members Gandhi, Asokan, Satthivelu and
Magilavannam also wrote a letter as per Ex. P-542
informing that they had resigned from their post. Through
this witness, the prosecution has marked Exs. P-544 to P-
547.

Mr. Lakshmi Narayanan, P.A., to the Company
Registrar is examined as PW 94 regarding the registration
of Ramraj Agro Mills Ltd., This witness has deposed that
Ramaraj Agro Mills Ltd., is registered in their office on
28.5.1996 with registration No. 13060/1986 as per Ex. P-
606. The company was started by Thillanayagam,
Ramaswamy Udayar and five other persons. The copy of
Memorandum of Association is at Ex. P-606 and the copy
of Articles of Association is at Ex. P-608. The Form No. 29
relating to the Company are marked as Exs. P-609, 610
and 611 and Form No. 18 is marked as Ex. P-612 and it is
stated that as per Form No. 32, V.N. Sudhakaran,
Sundaravadanam, Ilavarasi and S. Prabha were appointed
as Additional Directors with effect from 23.11.1994.

Ex. P-615 is the certified copy of the Form No. 32,
dt. 8.5.1996 submitted by Sundaravadanam in his
capacity as the Director intimating that A-3 resigned as
Director on 8.5.1996 and A-4 Elavarasi and Prabha
resigned with effect from 22.2.1996 and with effect from
the said date, three other persons were appointed as
Additional Directors.

Ex. P-542 is the letter, dt. 24.11.1995 written by
T.V. Sundaravadanam to the Managing Director, S
IPC
OT
Ltd., Madras regarding the change of management and re-
schedulement of the loan and waiving of interest. In the
said letter, it is stated that the change of management has
taken place with effect from 19.1.1995 and only the
following four Directors, who have been earlier inducted as
Additional Directors on 23.11.1994 have been functioning
as Board of Directors viz., 1. Tr. T.V. Sundaravadanam
(with 12 lakh shares), 2. Tr. V.N. Sudhagaran (with 12
lakh shares), 3. Tmt. J. Elavarasi (with 1000 shares) and
4. Tmt. S. Prabha (with 1000 shares). The other shares
are held by the associates of the company.

Ex.P-144 is the certified copy of the sale deed
(document No. 26), dt. 7.1.1995 executed by A.S.
Arunachalm, who is the power of attorney of Mr. Gandhi in
favour of Ramaraj Agro Mills Ltd., shop No. 21, Wellington
Plaza, Anna Salai, Madras in respect of 4.44 acres of land
comprising Sy. No. 83/1 and Sy. No. 80 situate in
Vandampalai village for Rs. 88,800/-. The consideration is
shown to have been paid by means of DD bearing No.
626330, dt. 7.1.1995 issued by the Indian Bank.

Ex.P-146 is the certified copy of the sale deed
(document No. 28), dt. 7.1.1995 executed by Tmt. S.
Valli, through her power of attorney Mr. Gandhi in favour
of Ramaraj Agro Mills Ltd., shop No. 21, Wellington Plaza,
Anna Salai, Madras for Rs. 1,78,200/-paid by means of a
DD bearing No. 626333, dt. 7.1.1995 drawn on Indian
Bank in respect of 8.91 acres comprised in Sy. Nos. 77/1A,
77/1C, 77/1B/82/1A situate in Vandampalai village.

Ex.P-147 is the certified copy of the sale deed
(document No. 74) of January, 1995 executed by Tmt.
Rajamani Ammal, represented by her power of attorney
Mr. Asokan in favour of Ramaraj Agro Mills Ltd., shop No.
21, Wellington Plaza, Anna Salai, Madras in respect of 4.57
acres comprised in Sy. Nos. 75, 76/5, 76/2A and 77/1D
situate in Vandampalai village for a consideration of
Rs.1,62,000/- by means of Bankers Payment Order
bearing No 121333, dt. 7.1.1995 issued by the Indian
Bank, Madras-18.

Item No.146- Cost of construction of labour quarters
(five) in ground floor and five in 1st floor, 10 numbers in
ground floor and 10 numbers in 1st floor, construction of
1st floor for guest house, over the existing ground floor
and construction of platform in Ramaraj Agro Mills campus
at Vandampalai during 1994-95 (Evaluation report)
- Rs. 57,19,800.00

Item No. 147, Cost of constructions of compound
wall, twin houses, staff quarters for eight numbers and
M.D. bungalow in Ramaraj Agro Mills campus at
Vandampalai in 1994-95 (Evaluation Report)
- Rs. 83,41,000.00

Referring to Ex. D-208, the learned counsel for A-1
further submitted that the company had borrowed a loan
of Rs. 1 Cr. from Magunta Investments Pvt. Ltd., towards
ICD and the conformation in this regard was produced
before the Income-tax authorities as per Ex. D-208 and
DW.87 has spoken about all these transactions, which
clearly indicate that the company was possessed sufficient
needs and resources to acquire the properties and to
effect construction therein. Moreover, the prosecution has
not produced any material before the court either to show
that A-1 had advanced any funds for the acquisition of the
said assets, nor is there any evidence on record to indicate
that A-2 to A-4 had advanced any funds towards the
acquisition of the said properties. Therefore, the entire
amount shown in item Nos. 146 and 147 are liable to be
deducted.

Before appreciating the contention urged by the
learned counsel for A-1, it may be relevant to refer the
evidence of PW 153 the Superintending Engineer in Tamil
Nadu Public Works Department, who has deposed
regarding the inspection of the labour quarters and the
compound wall under construction in Ramaraj Agro Mills
Campus at Vandampalai. According to this witness, he has
worked in Public Works Department for about 35 years
and for many years he has worked in Construction Division
only. An order was issued to the PWD Chief Engineer on
20.11.1996 to assess the buildings in the premises of
Ramaraj Agro Mills Ltd., at Vandam Palayam in A.T.
Panner Selvam district. Kaliyappan, Asst. Executive
Engineer, Karunakaran, an Asst. Engineer, Manian, a Jr.
Engineer and Rajaraman, an Electrical Engineer were
appointed to assist him in the assessment from
27.11.1996 to 29.11.1996. They inspected all the
buildings and took the measurement and then prepared
the assessment report on the basis of the respective order
of construction and on the schedule rate of PWD, prepared
the assessment report as per Ex. P-822 and he arrived at
the total value of the civil work at Rs. 139.56 lakh,
electrical works at Rs. 10.734 lakh and total of Rs.
150.294 lakh. He has specifically deposed regarding the
value fixed by him for the buildings constructed during the
years 1991-92 and during 1994-95.
In the cross-examination, it is elicited that there was
no written order to inspect the buildings. From 27.11.1996
to 29.11.1996 when they inspected the buildings, two
workers from the mill assisted them in digging and other
allied works. It is elicited that the court order was not
issued and he did not serve any written notice on the
company. It is further elicited that the Electrical Engineer,
who assessed the electrical works belong to the Public
Works Department. In those buildings, workers quarters
(30 residences in two buildings), a go-down, a guest
house in the 1st floor and the compound wall were
completely done. In the bungalow for the Managing
Director, two twin houses and a house of quarters were
built. Electrical fittings were not fixed and the final coat of
painting was also not done. In the cross-examination, it is
elicited that the reports were written in two different ink
pens. The Asst. Engineer, Karunakaran wrote the report.
In the report, it was written as 'for the subsequent year'
and it was struck and corrected as 'respective' in different
ink. It is also elicited that the Asst. Engineer Karunakaran
prepared the plan and notes under his supervision. He
valued the buildings on the basis of the PWD rates. The
rate list is not enclosed to Ex. P-822 and it does not have
the details. As the water supply and sewerage were
concealed, he consider those rates as per PWD norms. The
rate of electrical fittings were also fixed at the rate of
PWD. From local enquiry and his experience, he
determined the age of the buildings.

Though this witness was fully cross-examined, he
was recalled and subjected for further cross-examination
on 24.12.2012 and he made contradictory statements
regarding the age of the buildings as well as the rates
applied by him for assessment of the value of the
buildings. But, when he was recalled at the instance of the
Public Prosecutor and was subjected to re-examination by
putting a question, he has given two different versions
regarding the year of construction of the buildings and
which amongst the two versions is the correct one, PW
153 categorically answered that the earlier version i.e., he
has stated in his examination-in-chief is correct. During
the cross-examination by the counsel for A-1, he answered
that during his first examination in the year 2000, his
deposition has been made over and accordingly, accepted
it as correct and signed it. But, in so far as his deposition
in the year 2002 is concerned, he was not permitted to go
through the deposition and was asked to sign the same in
the presence of the counsel for the accused.

The learned counsel for A-1 has seriously disputed
the liability and admissibility of the report submitted by
PW.153 contending that the valuation report submitted by
him is interpolated and he has not furnished the verifiable
data either to determining the age of the buildings or the
rate for the construction. In support of his arguments, the
learned counsel referred the evidence of DW 81 M.
Karunakaran, Asst. Executive Engineer, PWD, who was
part of the team in the preparation of the valuation report
Ex. P-822. This witness deposed on oath that, at the time
when he signed the report Ex. P.822, in the last para, it
was mentioned as 'The rates for the materials and labour
are arrived at adopting the schedule rates for the
subsequent years for execution and the individual values
are worked for each year and the total amount works out
to Rs. 139.56 lakh. But, it is now seen that, in the above
last para in the 3rd line, the words 'for the subsequent'
have been struck off and there is inter-lineations of the
portions 'at the respect.' Further, this witness deposed
that the report was signed individually and at the time of
inspection, no representative of M/s. Ramaraj Agro Mills
Ltd. was present.

In appreciating the testimony of this witness, it is
relevant to note that this witness has not disputed the fact
that he was also one of the members of the team along
with PW 153 in the assessment and valuation of the
workers quarters and the compound wall. He has not
denied the fact that during the inspection, the
measurements of the buildings were taken and the rates
were determined on the basis of the PWD rates. As a
matter of fact, Ex. P-822 not only contains the report duly
signed by PW 153, DW 81 and other Engineers including
the Electrical Engineer, who were part of the assessment
team, but also contains the detailed estimate with
reference to the measurements of individual items of
works running to nearly 219 pages and along with the plan
of the buildings and the compound wall duly signed by all
the above persons including DW 81, which has remained
un-impeached.
No doubt, it is true that in the report there are
interlineations as stated by DW 81, but I do not find that
the said interlineations has the effect of nullifying the
entire contents of Ex. P-822 or the oral testimony of PW
153. Though the learned counsel has made much of the
fact that "rates for the subsequent years" is scored off and
in its place "at the respective year" is inserted, nothing
turns out from the said corrections as is published. It is
not the case of either party that PWD publishes the rates
for the subsequent years. In the cross-examination of PW
153 itself, it is elicited that every year the rates could be
published in writing by the Superintending Engineer. It is
not the case of the accused that the rates for the
subsequent years are being published in the previous
years. Under the said circumstances, there is no question
of applying the rates for the subsequent years for
determining the assessment done in the relevant year.
Therefore, the objections raised by the learned counsel for
A-1 do not merit acceptance.

The accused have not disputed the fact that the
workers quarters as described in the report and the
compound wall was being constructed at the relevantyear.
On consideration of the evidence of DW 81, I find that this
witness is totally a false witness and has no regard for
truth whatsoever. From the circumstances brought out in
the cross-examination of this witness clearly suggests that
he is propped by the accused to support the false defence
set up in a bid to offer explanation to the huge assets
amassed in the name of the company. In appreciating the
evidence of DW 81, it is important to note that being a
public servant, who was deputed to assist PW 153 and
participated during the evaluation of the structures and
the compound wall and he himself scribed the report in his
own hand writing, has even gone to the extent of denying
the suggestion in the cross-examination, which reads that
"It is not true to suggest that I put signatures
in Ex. P-822 after going through the contents
of upon being satisfied about the correctness
of the said report."

92.26) When he has admitted in his evidence that
Ex. P.822 is in his own handwriting, it cannot be believed
that he has signed the report without knowing the
contents thereof. This statement not only dents the
credibility of his evidence given before the court, but
raises serious questions of his continuation in government
service. His evidence suggests that either he has been
careless or negligent in performance of his duties or that
he has deliberately given false evidence unmindful of the
consequences that would emanate from his evidence.
Nevertheless, it stands established that, by the statements
made before the court, he has rendered himself liable for
Departmental Enquiry for the misconduct referred above.

92.27) In so far as the documents produced by the
accused is concerned, it is necessary to note that Ramaraj
Agro Mills Ltd., is a public limited company. As per the
provisions of the
Companies Act
, it is required to maintain
proper accounts complying with the accounting standards.
At every annual meeting, the Board of Directors are
required to lay the balance sheet, profit and loss accounts
statement and report of the Directors etc., which would
have been the best evidence regarding the share capital,
reserves and liabilities of the company. But, strangely in
proof of the asset s and liabilities of the company, the
accused have relied on the oral testimony of DW 87 the
Chartered Accountant, who is stated to have been involved
in the auditing of the accounts of M/s Ramaraj Agro Mills
Ltd., But, bare perusal of the documents marked through
this witness at Exs. D-204 to D-208, on the face of it, it
reveal that the said documents got up by the accused only
to bolster of false defence set up by the accused. Ex.D.204
is certified to be the true copy of the Form No. 3 CA viz.,
the audit report filed on behalf of M/s Ramaraj Agro Mills
Ltd., It is dt. 22.11.1994. The audit report is marked as
Ex. D-206 and it is dt. 1.9.1995. This document is certified
as true copy by R. Vaidyanathan, partner of S.
Venkataram & Co., On the face of it, this document is not
admissible under law neither it is a certified copy, nor is
the author of this document examined to prove the said
document, as such no reliance could be placed on this
document. Even otherwise, this document which is dt.
1.9.1995 could not have been the part of Ex. D-204. There
is nothing to indicate that either Ex. D-204 or Ex. D-206
were produced before the income-tax authorities and any
order has been passed thereon. The profit and loss
account statement for the year ending 31.3.1995 and the
balance sheet for the said period are enclosed to the said
auditor report, which are also certified by the partner of S.
Venkataram & Co., Neither the Directors, nor the partners,
who have signed the documents are examined before the
court. It is also not known who has signed this balance
sheet and the profit and loss account statement. The
certified copy of the annual returns filed by Ramaraj Agro
Mills Ltd., is marked as Ex. D-205. The endorsement
therein indicates that the said returns were filed only on
30.9.2000. It is seen to have been signed by one A.
Kuppusamy as the Director of the company. Though the
annexures to the said returns are not produced, this
document clearly indicates that the returns in respect of
the company were filed in the year 2000. Under the said
circumstances, Ex. D-204, D-206 and D-207, which are
certified as the true copies by Venkataram & Co., lead to
inevitable conclusion that these documents were got up by
the accused and these documents were neither the part of
the returns, nor were produced by the Income-tax
authorities at any time.

92.28) Though the accused have contended that Rs.
1 Cr. was availed as loan from Magunta Investments Pvt.,
Ltd., company, the accused has neither produced any
reliable evidence in proof of the availment of the loan, nor
they have examined the author of Ex. D-208 or the
recipient thereto. Ex. D-208 is said to be the conformation
letter issued by Magunta Investments Pvt., Ltd., in proof
of the loan availed by the company. It is dt. 8.2.1996,
which reads as under;
"Paid to M/s Ramaraj Agro Mills Pvt. Ltd., DD
(vide Global Trust Bank Ltd. Ch. No. 017715,
dt. 8.2.1996) for Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rs. One
Crore only) towards I.C.D.,

Sd./-
For MAGUNTA INVESTMENTS PVT.
LTD.,
Director/Authorized signatory."

92.29) There is absolutely no supporting document
by way of bank payment book or proof of either issuance
of DD or the cheque or encashment by M/s Ramaraj Agro
Mills Ltd., in proof of the said loan. The accused have
sought to sustain the defence solely on the basis of
Auditor's report and the so-called profit and loss account
statement and the balance sheet, which undoubtedly has
been got up without any basis or supporting bank
documents required under the
Companies Act
.

92.30) The testimony of PW 182 the Chief Manager,
Indian Bank, Abhiramapuram Branch reveals that, by
submitting an application, dt. 22.12.1994 as per Ex.
P.1341, A-3 opened C.A. No. 1143 in the name of Ramaraj
Agro Mills Ltd., company. This application does not contain
the seal of the company, nor is it accompanied by any
resolution of the company to open the account. Be that it
may, the statement of account relating to this C.A. No.
1143 discloses that the said account was opened on
23.12.1994 with a deposit of Rs. 1500/-. There is a credit
entry for Rs. 8,60,000/- by transfer on 7.1.1995. There is
no other credit entry. A self-cheque for Rs. 1,55,000/- is
seen to have been passed on 7.1.1995 and that cheque is
signed by A-3 as authorized signatory of Ramaraj Agro
Mills Ltd., as per Ex. P-1345. On 7.1.1995 a cheque for Rs.
6,98,000/-was passed in favour of the BBO. PW 182 has
explained that Ex. P-1347 is the application, dt. 71.1995
submitted by one Ram Vijayan for issuance of Bank Pay
Orders for Rs. 6,98,000/-. It is marked as Ex. P-1347 and
he has further stated that the Pay Orders were asked in
the name of the persons as per the list. Though the
individual Pay Orders or DDs corresponding to the sale
consideration paid under document Nos. 25 to 29 is not
spoken to by PW 182, yet in the sale deeds referred to
above viz., Exs. P-143 to P-147, the sale consideration is
shown to have been paid by means of DDs bearing Nos.
626328, 6263330, 626329, 626333 and BPO 121333, dt.
7.1.1995 issued by the Indian Bank, which co-relates to
the amounts drawn through this account.

92.31) Through the above witness, the prosecution
has marked the statement of account relating to OD 78
standing in the name of Ramaraj Agro Mills Ltd., as per
Ex. P-1348. This account was opened on 4.2.1995. On the
same day, a cheque for Rs. 25,02,250/- has been passed
under MT Thiruvarur. On 9.2.1995 a cheque for Rs. 25
lakh was passed in favour of BBO. On 21.2.1995 an
amount of Rs. 50 lakh was transferred from C.A. No. 1113
to this account. On the same day, there was a debit entry
for Rs. 50,05,500/- by MT Thiruvarur. On 23.2.1995 an
amount of Rs. 50 lakh has been credited to this account by
transfer from OCC-19. On 25.2.1995 there is a debit entry
for Rs. 50,03,500/- by MT Thiruvarur. On 26.3.1995 to
debit the balance from this account was transferred to
OCC - 19 account and then the account was closed. There
was a debit balance of Rs. 55,38,023.65 at the time of
transfer on that day.

92.32) Ex.P-1349 is the application signed and
submitted by V.N. Sudhakaran to open a OCC-19 account
in the name of Ramaraj Agro Mills Ltd., Ex. P-1350 is the
photo copy of Form No. 32. One Gandhi has signed in it on
19.2.1994. Ex. P-1351 is the letter signed and submitted
by V.N. Sudhakaran asking for a loan of Rs. 200 lakh for
the company. Ex. P-1352 is the sanction ticket received
from their head office sanctioning a loan (OCC) of Rs. 165
lakh and it is dt. 24.3.1995. Ex.P.1353 is the copy of the
telex message sent from the central office asking to
transfer the sanctioned loan of Rs. 165 lakh to the same
company's account in the Thiruvarur Branch of Indian
Bank. Ex. P-1354 is the statement of account of OCC-19.
On 23.2.1995 an amount of Rs. 50 lakh has been
transferred from this account to OD-78. On 11.3.1995 an
amount of Rs. 50,03,500/- has been debited by cheque by
MT. Thiruvarur. On 26.3.1995 an amount of Rs.
55,38,023.65 has been transferred from OD-78 account to
this account and debited. Money has been credited into
this account many times by MT Thiruvarur. As on
30.4.1996 in this account, the amount due to the bank
was Rs. 39,10,781/-. An amount of Rs. 17,93,002/- was
debited from this account towards interest till 30.4.1996.

The learned Sessions Judge has observed in respect
of the Signora Business Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. as under:

93. As per the evidence of PW.94 R. Lakshmi
Narayanan, Personal Assistant to Company Registrar,
Signora Business Enterprises Pvt., Ltd., was registered in
the office of the Company Registrar on 22.10.1990 with
registration No. 19806 of 1990. The Certificate of
Registration is at Ex. P-586. Ex. P-587 is the Memorandum
of Association and Ex. P-588 is the Article of Association.
The company was started by Sri Bhaskar Reddy from
Nellore and Narayana Rao of Chennai. They were the 1st
Directors. The company's official address was L-17/4, 26th
Cross, Besant Nagar, Chennai. On 13.3.1992, Form No. 18
was submitted regarding the change of office address as
per Ex. P-589. On 7.9.1994, Form No. 32 was submitted
intimating resignation of P. Krishna Rao and B. Narayana
Reddy with effect from 29.8.1994 and the appointment of
A-3 V.N. Sudhakaran and A-4 J. Elavarasi as the Addl.
Directors with effect from 17.8.1994 as per E. P-598. On
24.11.1994 Form No. 18 was submitted for having
changed the office of the company to No. 21, 1st Floor,
Wellington Plaza as per Ex. P-591. Thereafter, another
Form No. 32 was filed on 28.5.1996 stating that Manohar
and Hari Krishna from Bombay were appointed as Addl.
Directors on 17.2.1996 and on 5.2.1996 respectively as
per Ex. P-592. On 30.5.1996 Form No. 32 was submitted
as per Ex. P-593 intimating the resignation of A-3 on
5.3.1996 and resignation of A-4 on 12.3.1996. Thereafter,
PW 94 did not receive any information about the change of
address of the said company.
In the cross-examination, it is elicited that the
company had filed the Returns for the year1991-92 and
1992-93. The copies of the Returns and the Balance sheet
with Auditor's report filed on 5.5.1993 by Narayana Rao
and V.S. Bhaskar Reddy reveal that the authorized capital
of the company was Rs. 10 lakh and the paid up capital
was only 900 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each amounting
Rs. 9,000/-. In the Auditor's report, dt. 9.9.1993, it is
specifically stated that the company has no fixed assets
and there were no stocks and the company had not given
or taken any loan from the firms or companies or its
Managers. Thus, from the documents marked through this
witness coupled with his oral evidence, it stands
established that, after the resignation of the earlier
Directors, A-3 and A-4 became the Directors of the
aforesaid company on 17.8.1994 and resigned on
5.3.1996 and 12.3.1996 respectively. There is nothing on
record to show that the company had filed any Annual
Returns or the Balance sheet subsequent to A-3 and A-4
became the Directors thereof. There is also nothing on
record to show that either A-3 or A-4 had subscribed the
shares of the company or had contributed to the capital of
the company.

93.2) Regarding various properties purchased by
this Firm after A-3 and A-4 became its Directors, PW.9
Sadagopan, the Sub-Registrar, Cheyyur has deposed that,
during the year 1993 when he was working as Sub-
Registrar at Seyyoor, he registered the sale deed executed
by M/s K. Appaswamy Mudaliar and others in favour of
Signora Business Enterprises Pvt., Ltd., for Rs. 27,720/-
on 8.12.1993 as per Ex. P-34. On 1.2.1994 another sale
deed was registered as per Ex. P-35 in favour of the said
Firm for Rs. 84,400/- in respect of 1.14 acres of land. The
market value of the said property was Rs. 1,45,800/-. Ex.
P-33 is another sale deed registered in favour of Signora
Business Enterprises Pvt., Ltd., for Rs. 16,800/-. The
market value of this property was Rs. 28,760/-. On
26.5.1993 another sale deed Ex. P-36 was registered in
favour of the company for Rs. 1,20,000/- and on
25.6.1993 Ex. P-37 the sale deed was registered in favour
of the aforesaid Firm for Rs. 82,500/- (market value was
Rs. 1,41,000/-) and likewise, another sale deed Ex. P-38
was executed on 20.4.1993 and he registered it for Rs.
41,250/- (market value was Rs. 71,050/-) and on
25.6.1993 he registered Ex. P-39 executed in favour of the
aforesaid Firm for Rs. 55,500/- (market value was Rs.
82,140/-). In the cross-examination, it is elicited that, at
the time of the registration, he ascertained that the sale
price has been paid to the vendors and registered all the
documents only after the sellers confirmed that they have
received the cash.
The learned Sessions Judge has observed in respect
of the Indo Doha Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,as
under:

94.1) PW.84 further deposed that the share holders
had authorised PW.84 to sell the shares and get their
money. Accordingly, PW.84 and A-3 entered into a
memorandum of understanding as per Ex.P.510. Through
this witness, the prosecution got marked the bank account
Register Ex.P.511. PW.84 further deposed that, after
selling his shares he continued as Chairman of the said
Company and further deposed that during 1994, Company
was leased to SPIC and he signed the lease documents as
per Ex.P.512.

94.2) PW.84 further deposed that, in 1994
Natarajan, DW.2 asked him about the files, ledgers and
documents relating to Indo-Doha Chemical Company. He
told him that, all those documents have been given to the
auditor Sri.Rajasekharan. This witness was recalled on
07.09.2000 and during the examination by the counsel for
A-3, he substantially resiled from his earlier testimony
stating that he has not given any resignation letter during
1994. He further stated that, in the Board of Directors
meeting did not pass any resolution to sell the shares at
Rs.6/- per share. It was resolved as to whom the shares
were to be transferred and he does not know whether the
shares have been transferred to the name of
V.N.Sudhakaran or not. It is further elicited that till the
year 1993 the companysubmitted the yearly returns and
he has not informed to the Registrar of Companies about
the transfer of shares.

PW.85 - Sreedhar was the Vice-President of Ind
Bank from 1989 to 1997. He has deposed that Bank
purchased 2,50,000 shares of Indo-Doha Chemicals and
Pharmaceutical at Rs.10/- per share. The shares so
purchased in 1992 were sold in the year 1994 to
Sudhakaran for Rs.27,41,000/- and the amount was paid
through Canara Bank cheque.
PW.90 Tmt. Sheela Balakrishnan, Secretary
Administration Reforms Department, has deposed that the
Chairman of the Ramraj Agro Mills Ltd., Gandhi, wrote a
letter to the Managing Directors of S
IPC
OT Company
stating that, V.N.Sudhakaran, T.V. Sundaravadanam, J.
Elavarasi and Tmt. Prabha wereappointed as additional
directors. The existing members Gandhi, Asokan,
Satyavel, Mahilavannan wrote a letter stating that they
withdrew from their post. The said letter is Ex.P.542.
S
IPC
OT agreed for the change of administration. Ex.P.544
is the resolution of the Board of Meeting. PW.92 - Ketan
Gandhi, Excecutive Director of Interface Capital Market
Private Limited corroborated the testimony of PW.85
regarding the purchase of shares stating that, Interface
Capital Market Pvt. Ltd., purchased 2,20,000 shares of
Indo-Doha Chemicals and Pharmaceauticals Ltd., at
Rs.10/- per share. According to this witness after they
invested in the company, the company did not make any
profits. Hence they tried to sell the shares and in 1994 Ind
Bank approached PW.92 and holding that, they would
make arrangement to sell the share Ex.P.559, letter
written by the Bank to PW.92 and Ex.P.560 is the copy of
the letter written by PW.92 to V.N.Sudhakaran regarding
the matter. PW.92 further deposed that, a sum of
Rs.24,05,000/- was paid to them through D.Ds.

94.7) PW.93 James Fredric is the Managing Director
of Intake Products Ltd., He has deposed that, he own a
pesticide factory in Sipcot Industrial Estate, Cuddlore. He
knows V.N.Sudhakaran who purchased Indo-Doha
Chemicals Company which was beside his factory in the
Sipcot Industrial Estate. Sudhakaran wanted to develop
his factory and for that he needed the land of PW.93. He
wished to buy the factory shares and to take over the
administration. As the factory was running at loss and
having a debt of 7 to 8 crores, PW.93 agreed to hand over
the administration to Intake Products Ltd., to
V.N.Sudhakaran and agreed to transfer 8,56,636 shares of
the company to V.N.Sudhakaran, who paid Rs.50.00 lakhs
by way of three cheques. Through this witness,
prosecution got marked the extract of the Bank account of
PW.93 as Ex.P.563, copy of the pay-in-slip Ex.P.564,
P.565. This witness further deposed that, with this money
he took a D.D. of Rs.50.00 lakhs in the name of
Coromandel and settle the debts. Ex.P.566 is the
application for the D.D. This witness further deposed that
presently Intake company is under the control of official
liquidator.

During his cross-examination, except eliciting that
he did not tell the police during his enquiry about the extra
money given to him, the other part of his testimony was
not challenged. But, this witness was recalled at the
instance of the accused and surprisingly in his further
cross-examination by the accused, this witness stated
that, during his chief-examination he did not say anything
about Ex.P.563 to P.566 and further stated that Intake
Products Ltd., shares were not transferred to the name of
third accused and maintained that the shares of the
company are still with PW.93 and the amount of Rs.20.00
lakhs being the purchase money is also with him. He
denied having made any statement before the I.O. But,
pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India, even this witness was recalled by the learned Spl.
Public Prosecutor and was subjected to re-examination
and was questioned as to whether the statement made by
him during his chief-examination to the effect that they
were ready to transfer 8,56,636 shares of the company for
which V.N.Sudhakaran gave them three cheques viz.,
cheque for Rs.20.00 lakhs, Canara Bank, Mylapore,
cheque for Rs.20.00 lakhs Indian Bank, Mandhaveli, and
cheque for Rs.10.00 lakhs and the transfer of shares and
regarding the transfer of his shares, he received only
Rs.20.00 lakhs from the third accused and Rs.20.00 lakhs
is with him is correct. PW.93 answered that, due to the
age factor, his memory power has gone weak and
therefore he is not in a position to say which of the
statement is correct.

94.8) From the above evidence, it could be deduced
that,

(i) At the relevant time of acquisition of the above
properties, all the above six companies were exclusively in
the control and management of A-2 to A-4. As already
highlighted above, the promoters had already resigned in
favour of A-2 to A-4. Except Indo Doha Pharmaceuticals
Company Pvt. Ltd., all other promoters and erstwhile
Directors have unequivocally stated before the Court that,
on receipt of the amount invested by them for the
formation of the Companies, they signed the necessary
forms and went out of the Company and since then, they
ceasedof any right or interest in the said property.

(ii) The promoter Directors have categorically
stated before the Court that they did not purchase any
properties in their names either before or after the
formation of the Company as long as they were on the
Board of Directors.

(iii) It has come in evidence that A-2 to A-4 took
over the management of the Company without even
buying the requisite shares. Though it is argued by the
counsel for A-1 that in terms of the Memorandum of
Association and Articles of the Company, qualifications of
the shares is not necessary, yet, the fact remains that A-2
to A-4 continued the name of the Company without there
being any other shareholders and without purchasing any
shares by themselves. This is one of the strong
circumstances to show that, though the Companies are
incorporated under the
Companies Act
, they do not have
any trappings of a company.

(iv) It is proved in evidence that, none of the above
Companies had any account in their names. It is only the
erstwhile Shareholders of M/s. Ramaraj Agro Mills Ltd.,
had stated before the Court that the Company had a bank
account, but when a specific question was put to this
witness as to whether the payment for the purchase of the
properties was made from the said bank account, the
witness gave an evasive answer making it evident that for
the purchase of the properties involved in the case, the
funds of the Companies were never utilized.

(v) There is clinching evidence to show that the bank
accounts were opened by A-2 and A-3 in the name of the
Companies only after they took over the management and
control of the companies and all the transactions relating
to the said companies are stated to have taken place
through these accounts. But it is necessary to note that
the funds were transferred or remitted to these accounts
either from the bank account held in the name of
Namadhu MGR, Jaya Publications or other firms run by A-1
& A-2, which clinches the issue that, the funds for the
acquisition of the properties had flown from A-1 either
directly or through the accounts maintained in the joint
names of of A-1 and A-2.

94.9) It is also important to note that the properties
involved in the trial had never assumed the character of
the assets of the Company and did not vest with the
Company as contended by the learned Counsel for the
accused. It is proved in evidence that, no funds of the
above named companies were utilized for the acquisition
of the properties. It is an admitted fact that, none of the
companies had filed returns either before the Registrar of
Companies or before the Income Tax Authorities declaring
the funds for the purchase of the properties or the
acquisitions alleged to have been made in the name of the
Companies.
In the instant case,
Sections 209
,
,
and
of the Companies Act, 1956, have not been complied.
Returns have not been filed by the respective companies
from the date of its incorporation till the date of
attachment of the properties.

94.16)
Sec.220
of the Companies Act, lays down
that, "After the balance sheet and profit and loss
accounthave been laid before a company at an annual
general meeting as aforesaid, there shall be filed with the
Registrar within 30 days from the date on which the
balance sheet and the profit and loss account were so laid
or where the annual general meeting of a company for any
year has not been held, there shall be filed with the
Registrar within 30 days from the latest day on or before
which that meeting should have been held in accordance
with the provisions of this Act." It is not thecase of A-2 to
A-4 that during their tenure as the sole Directors of the
above Companies, they had complied with any of these
legal requirements so as to claim that the transactions
entered into by them were for and on behalf of the
Companies.

94.17) That apart, there is nothing on record to
show that, A-2 to A-4 had convened any annual general
meeting of the Company at the relevant time when they
were at the helm of the Company nor is there any material
to show that regular returns were filed before the
Registrar as required under law. That apart, the above
companies did not have their own auditor appointed as per

Sec.224
of the Act, instead, it has come in evidence that
the auditors of A-1 to A-4 themselves submitted the
returns after the properties of the companies were
attached. All these circumstancesclearly go to show that
the except using the name of the company, the
acquisitions were never intended to be the assets of the
above companies nor were they treated as the properties
of the companies at any point of time. It is only after the
attachment of the properties, the accused have come up
with the contention that the properties having been
registered in the name of the companies, the ownership
thereof vests with the Company and therefore the
properties in question could not be said to be the benami
properties of A-1. But, as already discussed above, the
funds for the purchase of these properties are proved to
have been flown from the sources provided by A-1 and all
throughout, the properties were treated as private
properties of A-3 & A-4. It has come in evidence that, A-3
and A-4 obtained loan for effecting improvements in these
properties and there is nothing on record to show that the
loan liability has been taken over by the above Companies.
The certified copy of the orders in Misc. Ptn. 768/2014 dt.
18.06.2014 and Misc. Ptn. 289/2014 dtd. 26.06.2014
passed u/Sec. 5 (3) of the Criminal Law Amendment
Ordinance, by this Court in exercise of the powers under
the said Ordinance, reveals that after the resignation of A-
3 and A-4, there was no proper appointment of the
Directors and a finding has been recorded that, apparently
for the said reason, the order of attachment passed in
1997 was not questioned before the District Judge for
nearly two years. A finding has been returned in the above
orders that the consideration for purchase of the
properties did not represent the funds of the respective
companies. In the light of these findings, the contentions
raised by the accused that the properties in question
absolutely belong to the above Companies and therefore
could not have been tagged to the assets of A-l on the
basis of benami cannot be accepted.

94.18) The argument of the learned counsel that the
Companies incorporated under the
Companies Act
cannot
hold the properties benami to another person is mis-
conceived and cannot be accepted. No doubt, it is a basic
or cardinal principle of law that, on incorporation, a
Company acquires legal status with perpetual succession
and a common seal. Since the Company has no physical
existence, it must act through its agents and all such
contracts entered into by its agents must be under the
seal of the Company. The common seal of the company is
of great importance. It acts as the official signature of the
Company. A document not bearing the common seal of the
Company is not authentic and has no legal force behind it.
But unfortunately, in the instant case, hardly any
document of title registered in the name of the above
Companies bear the seal of the Company. This is another
circumstance to show that the properties purchased in the
name of the above Companies never assumed the
character of the assets of the Companies. Worse still, the
above Companies are not even represented by either the
Secretary or Director and in 90% of the registered deeds
discussed above there is not even the address of the
Companies written in the body of the deed. This is another
circumstance to show that, shoddy and murky deals had
taken place in the names of the Companies solely with a
view to screen the properties acquired through illegal
means.

94.19) The above view gets further fortified from the
fact that, the Registrar who registered these properties
and PW.181 who negotiated for the purchase of the
properties bent the rules only to help the A-1. The
circumstances brought out in their evidence clearly
indicate that, they went out of the way to register these
properties as instructed by A-1 solely to oblige A-1. I have
already referred to some of the documents wherein, even
the names of the purchasers were not included at the time
of purchase and almost all the documents were under
valued. The Dist. Registrar has unequivocally stated that,
he proceeded with the registration solely because the
properties were purchased by A-1. Under the said
circumstance, it does not lie in the mouth of the accused
now to contend that since the properties were registered
in the name of the Companies they are deemed to be the
properties of the Companies.

94.20) The legal position is well settled ever since
the decision in the case of Solomon vs. Solomon that,
Company is a legal entity and is distinct from its members.
It bears its own name and a seal of its own. Its assets are
distinct from those of its members. This principle of
separate entity is regarded as curtain or veil which cannot
be generally pierced. But, when thisnotion of the Company
or its Corporate identity is used to circumvent law, to
defeat public policy, perpetuate fraud or illegality and used
as a cover or façade to justify wrong, defend crime, to
lend a name to private dealing, law will not regard the
Company as a corporate entity and afford the protection
which it otherwise entitled under the Company Law. When
camouflaged transactions are carried on behind the legal
façade, Court may lift this veil and look behind the
artificial personality of the Company and identify the real
personalities or natural persons operating behind the veil.
This is one of such case where overwhelming evidence is
available to show that the name of the Companies is used
by the accused to make acquisitions by diverting the funds
illegally amassed by A-1 during her tenure as Chief-
Minister.

94.21) The facts and circumstances proved in the
case undoubtedly establish that the accused have adopted
an ingenious ploy or device in furtherance of their criminal
conspiracy to shield the properties acquired through
commission of offence. The illegally amassed wealth
running to nearly 3000 acres of land is sparked in these
shell Companies, obviously for the reason that this
arrangement provides a convenient leeway to enjoy and
deal with the properties registered in the name of the
Companies and even dispose them of merely by passing a
mere resolution. Therefore, the intention of the accused in
buying over the above Companies and taking full control
over the management thereof and thereafter acquire large
number of properties in the name of the Companies
undoubtedly manifests the criminal motive and intention of
the accused attracting the ingredients of offence u/Sec.
13(1) (e) of the Act, R/w.
Sec. 120-B
of I.P.C.

94.22) In the preceding part of this judgment, I
have already referred to the view held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India on this point, wherein, it is clearly
held that the property in the name of an Income Tax
assessee, by itself cannot be a ground to hold that it
actually belongs to an assessee and that there is no
embargo in getting the property registered in the name of
one person, although the real beneficiary is another. In
view of the above factual and legal position, I hold that the
properties registered in the name of the above six
Companies and which are the subject matter of the G.O.
MS. No. 1183 dt. 25.09.1997 and G.O. MS. No.120 dt.
12.01.1997 issued by the State of Tamil Nadu is proved to
be the properties acquired and held by A-2 to A-4 for and
on behalf of A-1.

94.24) But, it is now well settled, that private
individuals can also be prosecuted for conspiracy and
abetment of offence of criminal misconduct along with the
public servant under the provisions of the
P.C. Act
. The
position of law in this regard is clarified by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of P.Nallammal vs.
State, 1999 Crl.L.J. 3967. It is observedthat acquisition
and possession by a public servant, is capable of being
abetted. It is held in the above decision that, there is
neither an express or implied exclusion in the 1988 Act to
deal with such a situation falling back on Sec. 109 of the
Penal Code. The Legislature, while framing 1988 Act made
no room for any doubt about the applicability of certain
provisions of Penal code for offences under the Act. The
absence of such a provision as found in the
Corruption Act

will only lead to the conclusion that the Legislature did not
want to wipe out all the provisions of the Penal Code
except Sec. 161 to 165-A which are found redrafted in the
1988 Act. U/Sec. 3 of the 1988 Act, the Spl. Judge has
power to try not only any offences punishable under this
Act, but also any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to
commit or any abetment of any of the offences under the
Act. The private individuals therefore can be prosecuted by
the Court on the ground that they have abetted the act of
criminal mis-conduct falling under
Section 13(1)(e)
of the
1988 Act committed by the public servant.

95. In the instant case, there is overwhelming
evidence to show that at the relevant time, A-2 to A-4 did
not have any source of income commensurate with the
value of the properties purchased in their name and all the
assets and pecuniary resources described in Annx. II
including properties registered in the name of the above
six companies were acquired out of the source provided by
A-1. In this context, it may be pertinent to ascertain the
antecedents of A-2 to A-4 and their financial status. As
already stated above, A-2 to A-4 are not related to A-1
either by blood or through any other relationship. A-1 is a
spinster. According to the prosecution, A-2 came to reside
with A-1 at Poes Garden in the year 1988, which fact has
not been disputed. PW.169 Sri. R. Krishna Murthy has
stated about the occupation of the husband of A-2 stating
that, Tr. M. Natarajan joined the Government service as
Assistant to the then Social Service Dept. Later, he was
placed as Information Public Relations Officer on
30.11.1970 and continued in that post till 31.07.1976.
Later in 1980 he was posted in the same post and
continued there till 1988. In his service records, he
appointed his wife Sasikala as nominee. He had received
Rs.3,000/- as scooter advance when he was PRO. Later to
buy a constructed house, he availed a loan of Rs.84,700/-
in 1987. In the same year he availed a loan of Rs.80,000/-
to purchase a motor car. On 1.11.1988, he submitted his
resignation but it was accepted in the year 1991 w.e.f. the
date of his letter. In the cross-examination, it is elicited
that PW.169 did not produce any document either in proof
of availment of loan or with regard to the resignation by
the husband of A-2. But it is not the case of A-2 that her
husband is even now continuing in Govt. service. Under
the said circumstance, there is no reason to disbelieve the
testimony of this witness that, her husband was in Govt.
service and he did not possess any substantial assets in
his name.

95.3) No doubt it is true that, A-2 has produced
certain Income Tax returns and has also filed wealth tax
returns after she started residing with A-1 at Poes Garden
claiming to have earned income through business carried
on by her in partnership with A-1 under the name and
style Jaya Publications and Sasi Enterprises. But all these
properties are taken into consideration by the prosecution
in Annx. I.

95.4) Coming to the financial status of A-3, PW.128
Balakrishnan has stated that on the application submitted
by A-3, a site was allotted to A-3 by the Tamil Nadu
Housing Board and through this witness the allotment file
is marked as Ex.P.720. Along with the said application A-3
has produced the income certificate issued by the
Tahsildar of Mambalam Guindy Taluk as per Ex.P.723
wherein, it is certified that the income of A-3 as on
28.07.1992 was Rs.44,400/- per annum. Added to that, he
has submitted a declaration as per Ex.P.722 stating that
as on that date, he and his wife or minor dependent child
did not own any house or house site or flat and also not
been allotted any other house to him. It is also the case of
the prosecution that, until 1992, A-3 was only a student
pursuing his studies and had no income whatsoever.
Though A-3 has contended that he was possessed with
substantial means and resources, A-3 has not produced
any independent evidence in proof of his financial capacity
to make large number of acquisitions in his name. The
evidence produced by the accused suggest that, he had
independently started a Super Duper TV which was later
converted to Super Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd., But I have
already recorded a finding regarding the income generated
by A-3 from the said business. Thus, the evidence on
record clearly points out that A-3 had no independent
source of income. Yet, large number of properties are seen
to have been registered in his name. likewise, it is proved
in evidence that A-4 had also no independent source of
income. It has come in evidence that, she came to reside
at Poes Garden after the untimely demise of her husband
who was also in Govt. service and she received the death
benefits of the deceased which were the only funds
available at her disposal. She did not possess any
immovable properties in her name. On the other hand, it is
proved in evidence that, she was also allotted a site by the
Tamil Nadu Housing Board as per Ex.P.719 and she had
submitted a declaration to the effect that her annual
income was only Rs.48,000/- in 1992. Even during her
examination u/
Sec.313
Cr.P.C., she has not disputed this
fact, which goes to show that even A-4 did not possess
any wherewithals to make the huge acquisitions in her
name, but for the patronage of A-1.

95.5) It is proved in evidence that, during the check
period, A-3 acquired the following properties either in his
individual name or in the name of the firmor Companies
viz.,

PROPERTIES STANDING IN THE NAME OF A-3

ANNEXURE - II

Description of property (including document Value of the
Sl.No. number property

and in whose name it was
purchased) (incl.
of stamp
duty
and
registration
charges

11 acres 83 cents in S.No.345/3B, 3A, 2, 5B, 2,33,770.00
60 5F, 5D,
5 5E 5C, 344/1 2, 402/4
F, , , , 401/1, 335/1 n
Siruthavoor
Village.
Tr. VN
Sudhagaran.
10 acres 86 cents in S.No.392/1, 391, 392,
62 380, 2,11,325.00
393 398 400 i
381/3, , 405/3, , 406, 399, , 406 n
Siruthavoor
Village.
Tr.
V.N.Sudhakaran
7 acres 44 cents in S.No.339/1A, 341/1,
65 342/3A, 2A, 1,45,891.00
2B1, 2B2, 338/1A, 3, 342/3B, 4A, 235/3, 4,2,
234/1,
2 in Siruthavur
Village.
Tr.
V.N.Sudhakaran
(Doc.NO.43/94 DT. 5.2.94 OF SRO North
Madras)
Amount paid over and above the cost in
66 document 4,85,000.00
No.43/94 dt. 5.2.94 S.R.O. North Madras to the
seller Tr.
Gopinath
3.30 acres in S.No.403/3, 401/2, in
79 Siruthavur 93,475.00
Village
Tr.
V.N.Sudhakaran
(Doc.No.222/94 dt. 24.5.94 of SRO
Thiruporur)

One sixth individed share of land in 5 ground
153 and 10,87,196.00
1133 Sq. ft. in S.No.3334/1A of Luz,
Avenue.
Tr.
V.N.Sudhakaran
(Doc.No.249/95 dt. 21.3.95 of SRO, North
Madras)

Expenditure towards acquisition of Indo-
173 Doha 86,91,000.00
Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., at
Cuddalore.
Ind
Tr. Ayyadurai, promoter of o Doha
Pharmaceuticals
Rs.35,45,000/-
To interface capital market shares
Rs.24,05,000
-
To Ind Bank Rs.
27,41,000/-
New/ Additional construction in the building 6,40,33,901.0
179 at the 0
Grape Garden Farm House in the limits of
Jeedi
Metla and Petpesherabad Villages in A.P.

Cash Balance as on 30.04.96 in CB Guindy,
206 in CA 47,453.64
1245 opened on 2.1.95 in the name of
Tmt. N.
Sasikala (Metal King)

Cash Balance as on 30.04.96 in CB,
208 Mylapore SB 61,430.00
24621 opened on 25.2.92 in the name
of VN
Sudhakaran

TN-09-E-9027 (Ashok Leyland Cargo
248 Vehicle) Tr. 5,05,009.40
VN Sudhakaran

TN-09-F-3744 (Trax Jeep) Tr. VN 2,96,191.28
249 Sudhakaran

Annexure-III

Sl.NO. Description of property
(including document Value of the
number and in whose
name it was purchased) property (incl. of
stamp duty and
registration
charges
Interest from SB 24621 of
42 Canara Bank, 24,323.00
Mylapore to Tr. VN
Sudhakaran
Interest from FDR No.1401/92
43 of Canara Bank 13,562.00
Mylapore for Rs. 5 lakhs to Tr.
VN Sudhakaran
Interest from FDR 238/93 of
44 Canara Bank 12,329.00
Mylapore for Rs.5,00,000/- by
renewal of FDR
1401/92
Hire charges from Act India
45 Ltd., for the Vehicle 9,18,910.00
No.TSR 333 "Swaraj Mazda
Van" owned by
V.N.Sudhakaran from 3.2.93
Brokerage charges received by
46 V.N.Sudhakaran 3,00,000.00
for the Deposits made by Selvi
J. Jayalalitha in
Can Finance Home Ltd., vide
FDRs No.186/91-92
and 352/94-95

ANNEXURE - IV

Amount
S.NO. Details of Expenditure in (Rs.)
159 Amount paid to Tr. Sampath from CA 2220 of 34,960.00
Canara Bank Mylapore on Tr. VN Sudhakaran on
26.10.95
160 Amount paid to Madras Telephones from CA 2220 1,995.00
of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. VN Sudhakaran
on 19.09.95, 7.11.95, 11.1.96, 26.2.96 and
26.4.96 (Rs.399 x 5)

161 Amount debited towards DD commission from CA 300.00
2220 of Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. VN
Sudhakaran on 16.7.93, 17.1.94, 19.1.94 and 14.5.94
162 Interest paid towards TOD from CA 2220 of 2,103.00
Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. VN Sudhakaran on
31.12.94, 15.12.95 and 7.3.96 (Rs.813 + 930 + (360)
163 Amount paid to Tr. Krishna from CA 2220 of 2,500.00
Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. VN Sudhakaran on
9.11.94

164 Amount paid to Post Master from CA 2220 of 399.00
Canara Bank Mylapore of Tr. VN Sudhakaran on
30.6.95
165 Amount paid to Upfront from CA 2220 of Canara 3,500.00
Bank Mylapore of Tr. VN Sudhakaran on 27.10.95
177 Amount paid to MMDA for allotment of a plot at 2,90,675.00
Door No.#-83, Besant Nagar, Madras by Tr. VN
Sudhakaran on 3.3.93 and development charge of
Rs.1500/- on 3.3.93 and scrutiny fee of Rs.475/-
on 1.3.93.
Plot cost Rs.2,88,750.00
D. Charge Rs. 1,500.00
Scrutiny fee Rs. 475.00
Rs.2,90,675.00

204 Amount paid towards BPO Commission from CA 301.00
1068 of Indian Bank, Abirampuram of Tr. VN
Sudhakaran on 21.12.94
205 Amount paid towards T.C charges and Folio 125.00
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
206 Amount paid to Temporary OD as interest from 388.00
CA 1068 Indian Bank, Abirampuram on 31.12.94
207 Amount paid to Tr. Srinivasalu on 12.5.95 from 4,410.00
CA 1068 of Indian Bank, Abirampuram of Tr. VN
Sudhakaran

95.7) From other accounts, there have been many
transfer to the above mentioned account. The details are
as follows:-
Date Name of the Account Amount
party No.

03.06.93 Tmt. N. Sasikala - 3,85,000.00
16.07.93 Tmt. N. Sasikala CA-2196 8,00,000.00
12.01.94 Tmt. N. Sasikala CA-2196 2,50,000.00
12.01.94 Tmt. N. Sasikala CA-2196 1,00,000.00
12.01.94 Tmt. N. Sasikala CA-2196 2,50,000.00
04.10.94 Vinod Video Vision CA-2133 11,00,000.00
04.10.94 Jaya Publications CA-2047 3,00,000.00
Metal
04.10.94 King CA-2277 9,00,000.00
05.10.94 Tmt. N. Sasikala CA-2196 5,00,000.00
18.10.94 M/s. Anjaneya CA-2250 7,50,000.00
Printers (P) Ltd.,
26.11.94 Namadhu MGR CA-1952 7,00,000.00
Vinod Video Vision CA-2133

05.12.94 Tmt. N. Sasikala CA-2196 3,00,000.00
28.03.95 Loan 3,50,000.00
reimbursement
05.12.95 N. Sasikala CA-2196 26,000.00
Metal
07.03.96 King CA-2277 2,50,000.00
16.07.93 F.D.No.283/93 - 5,12,329.00
(Amount on
maturity)
26.11.94 Through cheque - 14,72,666.00
purchae (clear
demand bill)

As per Ex.P.1576 through many clearings credited
were made on different dates in this current account.
Similarly on different dates money was withdrawn in the
form of cash. On 17.1.94 Rs.96,350/- on 26.12.94 Rs.5
lakhs, Rs.1,88,000/- on 18.3.95, 2 lakhs on 18.8.95 and
over and above this, smaller amounts were withdrawn on
different dates. A cheque dated 16.7.93 for
Rs.16,81,000/- was issued to the bank and deducted from
this current account. The cheques which were signed by
V.N.Sudhakaran are indeed Ex.P.1577. This cheque was
issued to the bank for the purchase of demand draft.
There are 6 entries on 29.1.94. The cheques were issued
due to each for Rs.5000/- to J. Real Estate, JJ Leasing J.S.
Housing, Jaya Contractors, Green Farm, J. Farm House,
and the amount was deducted from this current account.

An amount of Rs. 2 lakhs was transferred through
cheque from this account to Sasikala's account C.A.
No.2196 on 18.3.94. On 21.3.95 an amount of
Rs.10,88,000/- was transferred to M/s. Anjaneya Printers
(P) Ltd., account. On 14.5.94 a cheque was issued to the
bank for a sum of Rs.82,500/- to purchase a D.D. which
was deducted from this account. The application which
was signed by Ram Vijayan to purchase a Demand Draft in
the name of Muniyan for Rs.82,500/- is Ex.P.1578. A
cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- in the name of Ramayi Ammal
was presented on 21.3.95 and deducted from this account.
The cheque dated 17.3.95 indeed is Ex.P.1579. On
22.3.95 cheque for Rs.7,50,000/-was presented to Indian
Bank, Abirampuram Branch, and was deducted from this
account. The cheque dated 17.2.95 indeed in Ex.P.1580.
On 27.9.94 a cheque for Rs.12,00,000/- was issued in the
name of Aiyya Durai which was deducted from this
account. The cheque dated 24.9.94 which was signed by
V.N.Sudhakaran is Ex.P.1581. On 15.10.94 a cheque
issued for a sum of Rs.27,41,000/- in the name of IB
Merchant Bank was deducted from this current account.
The cheque dated 4.10.94 which was signed by
V.N.Sudhakaran is Ex.P.1582. on 18.10.94 a cheque for
Rs.9,00,000/- was issued in the name of Aiyya Durai and
was deducted from this current account. The cheque dated
15.10.94 signed by V.N.Sudhakaran is Ex.P.1583. A
cheque issued on 31.10.94 for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- in
the name of Aiyya Durai was deducted. The cheque dated
28.10.94 signed by V.N.Sudhakaran in Ex.P.1584.A
cheque for Rs.24,05,000/- was issued on 26.11.94 to the
bank to purchase a Demand Draft and the sum duly
deducted from this account. This cheque dated 26.11.94
signed by V.N.Sudhakaran in Ex.P.1585. The computer
printout showing the statement for the sum mentioned
above for the purchase of the demand draft is Ex.P.1586
to Ex.P.1588. Three demand drafts for Rs.9,00,000/ -
Rs.9,00,000/- and Rs.6,05,000/-were issued in the name
of Interface Capital Market Pvt. Ltd., A cheque for
Rs.2,55,000/- was issued on 9.12.94 in the name of Aiyya
Durai and deducted. The cheque dated 5.12.94 signed by
V.N.Sudhakaran is Ex.P.1589. A sum of Rs.75,000/- was
deducted on 7.4.95 in the name of V.N.Sudhakaran. On
8.5.95 a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was deducted in the name
of Radha Venkatachalam. On 16.5.95 a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- was deducted through a cheque in the name
of Sasikala."

95.8) The above evidence itself is sufficient to show
that all the above acquisitions were made out of the funds
diverted from the accounts of either A-1 or A-2 and A-3
and A-4 did not invest any funds either for acquisition of
the immovable properties or for effecting improvements
therein.

96) Another circumstance establishing conspiracy
and abetment is the formation of large number of firms in
the names of A-2 to A-4. It is not in dispute that, initially
A-1 and A-2 had commenced partnership business by
constituting two partnership firms by name Jaya
Publications and Sasi Enterprises. As per PW.123 Jaya
Publications was registered under the
Sales Tax Act
on
29.09.1988 in the Sales Tax office and its main business
was printing. The object of the Company was offset
printing for partnership. The original partners were A-1, A-
2 Divakaran and Dinakaran. The certificate of registration
is marked as Ex.P.692. Ex.P.693 is the certificate issued
by Central Sales Tax. This witness has categorically stated
that, Jaya Publications did not file returns up to 1998 as
per the sales Tax Act.

96.8) Thus, it could be seen that the business
activities in the name of A-2 to A-4 were started only
during the check period and it is established in evidence
that the said firms did not invest any funds of their own
to run the business, instead, it is proved in evidence that,
these firms facilitated A-1 and A-2 to transfer huge
unaccounted money through the bank accounts held in
the name of these firms.

96.9) In this context, it is pertinent to note that, at
the commencement of the check period, there were
hardly 10 to 12 bank accounts standing in the name of A-
1 and A-2, but during the check period there was
indiscriminate opening of accounts, so much so, the
witnesses have spoken about the opening of more than
50 bank accounts apart from the loan accounts held by
the accused as here below:
Sl. A/c Name of Account Date of Related Correspon
No. No. the Holder Opening Exhibits ding
Bank the A/c. (P) Witness
1 C.A.No. Indian Jaya 18.09.91 1021 PW.182
792 Bank Publication
2 C.A.No. -do- Super Duper 21.01.95 1034 PW.182
1152 T.V.Pvt. Ltd.
3 C.A.No. -do- Super Duper 27.08.94 1034- PW.182
1104 T.V.Pvt Ltd. 1082
4 C.A.No. -do- Jaya Finance 05.05.95 1102 to PW.182
1179 Pvt. Ltd. 1116
5 C.A.No. -do- Accused No.4 28.03.95 1107 to PW.182
1171 1109
6 C.A.No. -do- Accused No.3 30.03.94 1110 to PW.182
1068 1113
7 C.A.No. -do- Fresh 11.03.94 1115 to PW.182
1071 Mushrooms 1129
8 C.A.No. -do- J.J.Leasing and 27.01.94 1130 to PW.182
1059 Maintenance 1136
9 C.A.No. -do- Minor Vivek 12.09.94 1137 to PW.182
4110 through 1153
guardian
mother A.4
10 C.A.No. -do- J.Real Estate 27.01.94 1154 to PW.182
1050 1163
11 C.A.No. -do- J.S.Housing -do- 1164 to PW.182
1062 Development 1182
12 C.A.No. -do- Green Farm -do- 1183 to PW.182
1058 House 1195 and
13 C.A.No. -do- J.Farm House -do- 1201 to PW.182
1054 1213
14 C.A.No. -do- Anjaneya 23.01.94 1222 to PW.182
1053 Printers 1236 and
1238 to
15 C.A.No. -do- Jaya 27.01.94 1242 to PW.182
1049 Contractors 1250
and Builders
16 C.A.No. -do- Sasi 14.12.93 1251 to PW.182
1044 Enterprises 1260
17 C.A.No. -do- Meadow Agro 13.03.94 1261 to PW.182
1113 Farms Pvt. 1282
Ltd.,
18 C.A.No. -do- River Way 06.08.94 1294 to PW.182
1095 Agro Products 1312
Pvt.Ltd.,
19 C.A.No. -do- Signora 23.11.94 1313 to PW.182
1134 business 1319
Enterprises
Pvt.Ltd.
20 C.A.No. -do- Lex Property 31.08.94 1320 to PW.182
1107 Developments 1338
Pvt Ltd.,
21 C.A.No. -do- Ramaraj Agro 23.12.94 1341 to PW.182
1143 Mills 1354
22 S.B.No. Canara Ms.Jayalalitha 16.04.91 1377, PW.182
3832 Bank, Accused No.1 981,
Mylapore 982,
Branch 1378 to
23 C.A.No. -do- Ms.Jayalalitha 12.10.90 1382 PW.182
24 S.B. -do- Accused No.2 23.09.90 983, 984 PW.201
25 S.B. Bank of Accused No.1 28.02.90 1960 PW.202
5158 Madhura, (Jayalalitha)
Anna
Nagar
Branch,
Chennai
26 C.A.A/c Canara Mahasubbu 27.08.93 1966 PW.207
1689 Bank, Lakshmi
Anna Kalyan Mantap
Nagar (Accused No.3,
Branch A.4 and
Shrilatha Devi)
27 C.A.No. Indian Tmt.V.Gunabo- 05.05.95 1101 PW.209
1173 Bank, oshani
Abiramp-
uram
Branch,
Chennai
28 C.A.No. -do- Jaya Finance -do- 1106 PW.209
1179 Pvt. Ltd.,
29 C.A.No. -do- Accused No.4 28.03.95 1129 PW.209
1171 (Elavarasi)
30 C.A.No. -do- Accused No.3 30.03.94 1111 PW.209
31 C.A.No. -do- Fresh 11.03.94 1117 PW.209
1071 Mushrooms
(A.2)
32 C.A.No. -do- J.J.Leasing and 27.01.94 1136 PW.209
1059 Maintenance
33 S.B.No. -do- J. Vivek 12.09.94 1138 PW.209
34 C.A.No. -do- J. Real Estate 27.01.94 1160 PW.209
35 C.A.No. -do- J.S.Housing 27.01.94 1170 PW.209
1062 developments
36 C.A.No. -do- Green Farm -do- 1189 PW.209
1058 House
37 C.A.No. -do- J.Farm House -do- 1207 PW.209
38 C.A.No. -do- Anjaneya 23.01.94 1226 PW.209
1053 Printers Pvt.
Ltd.,
39 C.A.No. -do- Jaya 27.01.94 1248 PW.209
1049 Contractors
and Builders
40 C.A.No. -do- Sasi 15.12.93 1255 PW.209
1044 Enterprises
41 O.C.C. -do- Ramaraj Agro 23.12.94 1344 PW.209
No.1143 Mills Ltd.
42 C.A.No. -do- Gopal 23.03.95 1969 to PW.209
1146 Promoters (A2, 1973 &
3 and 4) 1360,
43 C.A.No. -do- Lakshmi 23.03.95 1975, PW.209
1140 Constructions 1976,
(A2, 3 and 4) 1978,
1979,
1361,
44 C.A.No. -do- Vigneswara 23.03.95 1981 to PW.209
1137 Printers (A2, 3 1985,
and 4) 1362
45 C.A.No. -do- Navasakti 23.03.95 1987 to PW.209
1164 Contractors 1991,
and Builders 1363,
46 C.A.No. -do- M/s.Sea 23.03.95 1993 to PW.209
1161 Enclave 1997,
Enterprises 1364
(A2, 3 and 4)
47 C.A.No. -do- Ayyappa 02.03.95 1999 to PW.209
1158 Property 2003,
Development 1365,
(A2, 3 and 4) 2004
48 C.A.No. -do- Namo Sivaya 23.03.95 2005 to PW.209
1155 Housing 2009,
Development 1366
(A2, 3 and 4)
49 C.A.No. -do- Sakthi 23.03.95 2011 to PW.209
1149 Construction 2015,
(A2, 3 and 4) 1367
50 C.A.No. -do- Oceanic 23.03.95 2017 to PW.209
1167 Constructions 2022
(A2, 3 and 4)
51 C.A.No. -do- Golden Green 23.03.95 2023 to PW.209
1170 Apartments 2027,
(A2, 3 and 4) 1369
52 C.A.No. -do- Bharani Beach 06.02.95 2264 PW.239
9006 Resorts

96.10) PW.201 has given the details of the amounts
transferred from the accounts held by other accused to the
Current A/c. No.2018 of A-1 as under ;

Transfer of amount from Current A/c. No.2047 (Jaya
Publications) to Current A/c.No.2018 (Ms. Jayalalitha A.1)

Amount
Date (Rs.)

05.08.1991 Rs.6 lakh.
12.08.1991 Rs.3 lakh.
21.03.1996 Rs.3 lakh.
17.07.1995 Rs.2 lakh.
13.03.1996 Rs.2 lakh.

96.11) Transfer of Amount from C.A.No.1952 (Namadu
M.G.R. to C.A.No.2018)

DateAmount (Rs.)

19.12.1991 3,00,000.00
20.11.1992 18,00,000.00
19.03.1993 5,00,000.00
05.07.1994 10,00,000.00
15.07.1994 5,00,000.00

08.08.1994 10,00,000.00
12.09.1994 15,00,000.00
14.09.1994 83,000.00
(transferred from

SB A/c.No.23832 and Namadu MGR

C.A No.1952 to this account

(C.A.No.2018)

22.09.1994 5,00,000.00
21.01.1995 6,00,000.00
21.03.1995 7,00,000.00
17.07.1995 3,00,000.00
03.11.1995 7,00,000.00
08.11.1995 7,00,000.00
05.12.1995 5,00,000.00
10.01.1996 1,00,000.00
04.03.1996 3,00,000.00

96.12) Transfer from A/c.No.2196 Sasikala (Ac.No.2) to
C.A.No.2018
Date Amount (Rs.)

01.10.1994 10,00,000.00
21.03.1995 15,00,000.00
19.04.1995 10,00,000.00
22.08.1995 8,00,000.00
17.10.1995 2,00,000.00
14.11.1995 10,00,000.00
05.01.1996 5,00,000.00
12.01.1996 15,00,000.00
04.03.1996 3,00,000.00
05.03.1996 1,00,000.00
14.03.1996 7,50,000.00
19.03.1996 5,00,000.00

02.04.1996 2,00,000.00

04.04.1996 25,00,000.00

96.15) It is not in dispute that, C.A. No. 1952 stands
in the name of Namadhu MGR. According to P.W.1 this
account was transferred to their bank from Kelly's
Purasawakam Branch on 23.10.1989. The account stood in
the name of 4 partners viz., A-1, A-2, Dinakaran and
Divakaran. This witness has deposed about various
amounts credited to this account No. 1952 in the form of
cash and has listed about 313 entries exceeding the
amount of Rs. 50,000/- credited to this account from time
to time, which itself amounts to a total of Rs.
7,41,05,155.50.

98.1 In the instant case, the accused have failed to
offer any satisfactory explanation as to the enormous
unexplained credits entered into their bank accounts.
Whatever explanation offered by the accused by way of
confirmatory letters are proved to be false and bogus. The
identity of the persons who provided the source is not
proved. The transactions which resulted in the cash credit
are also not established. As already discussed, the accused
have rested their defence solely on the balance sheet and
the profit and loss account statements said to have been
filed before the Income Tax Authorities. But, the said
documents are not proved in accordance with law and they
are not in compliance with the statutory requirements. The
auditors examined by the accused are found to be propped
up to support the false defence set up by the accused. It is
proved in evidence that the auditors examined by the
accused did not handle their accounts during the check
period and they were not conversant with the true facts. It
is also proved in evidence that, the returns and the
balance sheet and the profit and loss account were
maneuvered solely with a view to offer an explanation to
the huge unexplained credits entered in their respective
bank accounts. As a result, the accused have failed to
prove their defence even by the standard of
preponderance of probability.

98.2) Even otherwise, mere declaration of property
in the Income Tax returns does not amount to showing the
same was acquired from the known source of income. The
prosecution could show that, there was no real source of
income with the assessees and the public servant is the
real source. In the instant case, the prosecution has
succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the
only source for the acquisition of the large assets is A-1
herself.

98.3) It is proved in evidence that, all the
remittances into the various bank accounts referred above
were made by one Ram Vijayan and Jayaraman, the staff
of A-1 working in her house at Poes Garden at the relevant
point of time. PW.198 M. Jayaraman has categorically
stated that, Mr. Vijayan used to deposit the money given
to them in the names of the companies mentioned by A-2
in Canara Bank, Mylapore branch and Indian Bank,
Abirampuram branch. He has specifically stated that, Tmt.
Sasikala used to instruct him about the details of the bank
to which the deposit should be credited and she used to
send the amount either in suit cases or bags through
domestic servants. This witness has further stated that,
along with the money, she used to send challan books and
PW.198 used to fill the challans as directed by A-2. In the
course of his chief-examination he identified the challans
for having remitted the amount which came to be marked
as Ex.P.1123, P.1124, P.1139, P.1190, P.1299 and P.1304.
He has also identified the signature of Mr. Vijayan in those
challans and has stated that the said Vijayan is no more.
The bank officers examined by the prosecution viz.,
PW.182 and PW.201 have identified large number of pay-
in-slips marked as Ex.P.1035 - 1100 ; P.1122 - 1129 ;
P.1299 - 1308 ; P.1636 - 1919 ; P.2032 - 2082 and have
unequivocally stated that, most of these pay-in-slips bear
the name of Vijayan as the person remitting the amount.
This evidence undoubtedly establishes that even though
large number of accounts were opened either in the names
of accused or in the names of the firms or companies, yet,
the remittance into the said accounts used to be made
only by the staff of A-1 as per the instructions of A-2 who
was managing all the financial affairs of A-1.

98.4) There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to
show that, during the check period, either the accused or
the firms run by them credited any amounts to the various
accounts maintained by them. Except in case of Super
Duper T.V. Pvt. Ltd., no other firm or the Company has
produced any documents to show that they transacted
business during the check period and the income thereof
was used to be credited to their bank account. On the
other hand, the evidence produced before the Court points
out that, all these firms had drawn the money which was
transferred to their account either from the account of
Namadhu MGR or Jaya Publications. The details of the
transfers of such huge amount from Namadhu MGR and
Jaya Publications to the bank accounts of the accused and
the firms and the companies undoubtedly establish that all
the monies credited into the accounts of the accused were
from the accounts maintained by A-1 and A-2. In this
regard, it is relevant to note that, A-2 has taken up a
specific plea that, the large deposits collected from
the various subscribers of Namadhu MGR amounting to
more than Rs. 15 crores and the amount received by A-1
by way of gifts was credited to the account of Namadhu
MGR, Jaya Publications and the other accounts opened in
the name of the firms. But after thorough analysis of the
evidence produced before the Court, I have recorded a
definite finding that the plea set up by the accused is
totally false. Under the said circumstance, the inevitable
conclusion that would follow is that, the various amounts
credited into the accounts of Namadhu MGR or Jaya
Publications or the other accounts maintained by the
accused is the unexplained wealth accumulated by A-1.

98.5) It is not the case of A-2 that, during the check
period, she had made any remittances to the above
accounts out of her income. As already discussed above,
neither A-2 nor A-3 or A-4 had any independent source of
income. Even though large number of firms had been
constituted during the check period, it is proved in
evidence that none of these firms transacted any business
and there was absolutely no income from any of these
firms. On the other hand, it is established that, all these
firms and companies had received funds diverted from the
bank account of A-1 and out of these funds, A-2 to A-4
acquired various properties described in Annx. II. As the
accused have failed to prove even by preponderance of
probability that, they had any independent source of
income to acquire the assets found in their possession, it
goes without saying that all the acquisitions were made
out of the source provided by A-1. As a result, I hold that
the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that
the real source for acquisition of assets detailed in Annx. II
is A-1 alone.

98.6) The whole gamut of evidence discussed above
establish that the cash or pay orders or D.D.s are drawn
from the different bank accounts for the purpose of
acquisition of the assets. PW.201 and PW.182 have spoken
in detail about the pay orders and the D.Ds issues by them
at the instance of the accused. The cheques passed by the
said banks or the D.Ds or pay orders issued by them
directly co-relate to the details of the cheques or pay
orders mentioned in the various sale deeds, thereby
establishing the fact that the source for the purchase of
these properties had flown from the account maintained in
the name of the accused. But, as it is proved in evidence
that the credits made into these accounts were from the
unexplained resources of A-1, it necessarily follows that
the funds for acquisition of all these assets are provided by
A-1.

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

99. In so far as the complicity of A-2 to A-4 in the
alleged offence is concerned, there is overwhelming
evidence indicating the circumstances of active abetment
and conspiracy by the A-2 to A-4 in the commission of the
above offence u/Sec. 13 (1)(e) of the Act. Though it is
argued by the learned counsel for the accused that, except
the fact that A-1 to A-4 were residing together under the
common roof, there is no other evidence to show that they
were parties to the criminal conspiracy, yet, the
circumstances proved in evidence conclusively establish
that all the accused acted in a concert with each other with
the sole object to acquire and hold properties and assets
disproportionate to the known source of income of A-1. The
circumstances that have emanated from the evidence are
as follows:

(i) It is not in dispute that, A-1 had executed a
General Power of Attorney in favour of A-2 in respect of
Jaya Publications. The said G.P.A is marked as Ex.P.995.
Undisputedly, A-1 was a partner of the said firm and there
was no necessity for her to execute any power of attorney
in favour of A-2. The purpose behind executing the power
of attorney in favour of A-2 appears to be to give her a
free hand in the management of the Jaya Publications and
on that guise, A-1 has taken up a defence that she was a
dormant partner and was not aware of the transactions
carried on by A-2. But, by executing the G.P.A. in favour
of A-2, A-1 has rendered herself liable for all acts and
deeds performed by A-2 pursuant to the powers conferred
under the G.P.A. As already stated above, it is proved in
evidence that substantial funds accumulated by A-1 were
credited to the account of Jaya Publications and from the
said account, it was diverted to the other accounts and
ultimately was utilized for the acquisition of huge assets.
Therefore, it has to be presumed that A-1 was aware of
the transfer of these funds and the purpose for which
these funds were transferred to the other accounts. Even
otherwise, A-2 being the agent of A-1 was bound to keep
A-1 posted with these facts. Therefore, it does not lie in
the mouth of A-1 to contend that being a dormant partner
she was unaware of the activities carried on by A-2. The
circumstance of executing the power of attorney in favour
of A-2 indicates that with a view to keep herself secure
from legal complications, A-1 executed the said power of
attorney knowing fully well that under the said powers, A-
2 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
between the parties. As already stated above, at the
beginning of the check period, A-1 and A-2 were involved
in only two concerns by name Jaya Publications and Sasi
Enterprises. But during the check period, as many as 18
firms have come into existence. But, it is proved in
evidence that, none of these firms carried on any business
during the check period. There is absolutely no evidence to
show that any of the accused contributed any share capital
or received profit from these firms. Receipt of share of the
profits is a prima-facie evidence of partnership. But in the
instant case, there is absolutely no evidence to show that
during the check period, any of the partners received any
share of the profits or contributed capital for the running
of business. It has come in evidence that 10 firms were
constituted in a single day with the identical terms and
conditions, even though none of the firms carried on
business in terms of the said deeds. In addition, A-2 and
A-3 started independent concerns in their names during
this period. Not satisfied with this, even the defunct
companies are bought by the accused. But, what has
transpired in the evidence is that except buying large
number of properties, no other business iscarried on by
any of these entities. It has also come in evidence that the
accounts were opened during the check period and none of
these firms or companies had their own accounts or
independent resources. The circumstances proved in
evidence undoubtedly establish that these firms are
nothing but extentions of Namadhu MGR and Jaya
Publications. They owed their existences to the
benevolence of A-1 and A-2 and drew continued
sustenance from the funds transferred to their accounts.
Large amount of funds were diverted to these accounts
giving a clear indication that the firms were constituted
only with a view to siphon off the unlawful resources
accumulated by A-1.

(iii) Though A-1 has feigned ignorance about the
activities carried on by these firms, yet, it cannot be
forgotten that the aforesaid firms and companies were
operating from the residence of A-1. It is an admitted fact
that, A-2 to A-4 was residing at Poes Garden along with A-
1. It cannot be believed that, being the Chief Minister of a
State, she was unaware of the large scale activities carried
on by the persons living in her own house using her own
residential address. It has come in evidence that even the
voters' list of accused were maintained at the address of
A-1. Though in her 313 statement she has feigned
ignorance of the dealings of A-2 to A-4, there is no
explanation by A-1 as to why and for what purpose A-2 to
A-4 were living with her.
Admittedly, they are not related to her either by
blood or by any other relationship. Though the factum of A-
1 to A-4 residing together by itself may not lead to the
inference that there was meeting of mind to pursue the
object of conspiracy, but the larger question that would
arise for consideration is, why did they reside under the
same roof with A-1 when they are not related to each
other?

(iv) The definite stand of A-2 to A-4 is that, they are
not dependent on A-1 for their living. Each one of the
accused claims to have independent business and
independent source of living. They have even gone to the
extent of asserting that their assets are purchased out of
their own means and resources. Then, what made them to
live with A-1 when each of them have separate family has
not been explained. Admittedly, A-2 is married and has
her own residence. A-1 has claimed that mementos and
other gifts received by her are kept by her in the house of
A-2 indicating that there was more than ordinary
relationship between A-1 and A-2. The very fact, A-2 to A-
4 have engaged themselves in constituting firms and
acquiring large tracts of land out of the funds provided by
A-1 indicate that, all the accused congregated in the house
of A-1 not for social living nor A-1 allowed them free
accommodation out of humanitarian concern, rather the
facts and circumstances proved in evidence undoubtedly
point out that A-2 to A-4 were accommodated in the house
of A-1 pursuant to the criminal conspiracy hatched by
them to hold the assets of A-1.

v) It is vehemently argued that, A-1 has nothing to
do with the firms established by A-2 to A-4 and she has
been falsely implicated in the alleged offence at the
instance of her political rivals. But, the very documents
produced by the accused at Ex.D.61 reveals that before
the Income Tax Authorities, the representative of A-1
himself had putforth an argument that Rs.1 crore was
advanced by A-1 to Sasi Enterprises towards share capital
and further it was submitted that on the security of the
said amount, loan was borrowed by A-1, which argument
is seen to have been accepted by the Tribunal. Even
before this Court, there is abundant evidence to show that
A-1 has issued cheques in favour of other accused and has
filed applications for availing loan for the benefit of the
firms. Under the said circumstances, I do not find any
substance in the argument canvassed by the learned
counsel that A-1 was totally ignorant about the dealings of
the firms and is no way involved in the formation of the
said firms.
vi) The flow of money from one account to the other
accounts as detailed in the preceding paragraphs would
establish beyond reasonable doubt that all the accused
persons have actively participated in the conspiracy to
launder the illgotten wealth of A-1 for purchasing
properties in the names of the firms and the companies
acquired by them. In this context, it is also pertinent to
note that even though the assets and properties of the six
companies were attached by recourse to the provisions of
the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, the applications
for vacating the attachment were filed more than two
years after the date of attachment, making it evident that
other than the accused herein, no other person was
interested in the properties acquired by the accused in the
name of the Companies.

vii) Apart from the flow of money from one account
to the other, 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. I have
elaborately culled out the evidence of these witnesses in
the earlier part of the judgment. Both the above witnesses
have unequivocally stated before the Court that, they were
called to Poes Garden and on the instructions of the higher
officers they attended to the errands at the instance of the
accused. It has come in evidence that the Sub-registrar
has bent the rules and has registered large number of
documents by taking personal interest even though all
these properties were undervalued. It is also shocking to
note that, he even registered six documents without the
names of the purchasers being entered in the documents,
which indicate that the Sub-Registrar was also aware of
the purpose and design of the accused. It can be
presumed that, the District Registrar obliged to tour the
entire district and register the properties at the residence
of the purchasers, only to oblige A-1 and to assist her in
the acquisition of huge properties.

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

To sum up, the prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt the following facts constituting the
offences charged against the accused viz.,

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

II. Total expenditure incurred : Rs.8,49,06,833.00
by the accused
during the check
period

III. Total of (I) and (II) : Rs.63,51,55,048.00

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

V. Value of disproportionate assets and pecuniary resources
found in possession of accused as on 30.04.1996 which
has not been satisfactorily accounted.

Accordingly, answering Point Nos.1 to 3 as above, I
proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

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

Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable
doubt that, A-1 to A-4 were parties to criminal
conspiracy with the object of acquiring and possessing
pecuniary resources and assets to the extent of
Rs.53,60,49,954.00 beyond the known source of
income of A-1. Hence, A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 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 P.C. Act.

Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable
doubt that A-2 to A-4 abetted the commission of the
above offence by intentionally aiding A-1 in the
acquisition and possession of pecuniary resources and
properties disproportionate to her known source of
income as above. Hence, A-2, A-3 and A-4 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 P.C.
Act.

SENTENCE

For the offence u/Sec. 13 (1) (e) R/w.
Sec. 13
(2)
of the P.C. Act, A-1 Selvi. J. Jayalalitha, D/o. Late.
Jayaram, is hereby sentenced to undergo
simpleimprisonment 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 P.C. Act, A-1 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
.,
R/w.
Sec. 13 (2)
of P.C. Act, A-2 Tmt. Sasikala
Natarajan, A-3 Tr. V.N. Sudhakaran and A-4 Tmt. J.
Elavarasi 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, A-2, A-3 and A-4 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 P.C. Act, A-2, A-3 and A-4
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,
A-2, A-3 and A-4 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., Riverway
Agro Products (P) Ltd., and Indo Doha Chemicals and
Pharmaceuticals 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.

9. Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the

appellant in Crl.A.No.835/2014 argued as under:

He submitted that Annexure-I is the assets acquired

before the check period. Annexure-II is the assets

acquired at the end of the check period i.e. 30.4.1996.

Annexure-III is the income during check period.

Annexure-IV is the expenditure during check period.

Annexure-V is Annexure-II (Assets at the end of the check

period, i.e. 30.4.1996) minus Annexure-I (Assets before
the check period). Annexure-VI is Annexure-IV

(expenditure during check period) minus Annexure-III

(income during check period). Annexure-VII is Annexure-

V plus Annexure-VI.

The learned senior counsel further submits that the

order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not fully complied

with. Leading questions were put during the course of re-

examination which is not permissible under the
Indian

Evidence Act
. The judgment of the trial Court at

paragraph-66 relating to item No.225 is based on the oral

evidence of PW.198-Mr.Jayaraman. As against item

No.225 in Annexure-IV, Rs.16,15,500/- has to be

excluded. Accused No.1 was the Chief Minister from

24.6.1991 to 12.5.1996. In the year 1996, All India Anna

DMK Party was defeated. DMK came to power. On

14.6.1996, Dr.Subramanian Swamy presented a private

complaint before the Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Chennai. Based on that, Crl.M.P.No.3238/1996 was

registered. Learned Sessions Judge ordered for an enquiry

under
Section 202
of Cr.P.C. PW.240-Tmt.Letika Saran,

the then DIG of Police, was ordered to conduct an enquiry

and report within two months. She has misunderstood the
order of the Court and collected various documents namely

Income Tax Department Returns and documents from

Banks. She recorded statements of 300 witnesses. These

statements cannot be treated as statements recorded

under
Section 161
of Cr.P.C. She did not file any report.

PW.240 sought for extension of time. Time sought was

granted. The said order was challenged vide

Crl.M.P.No.5755/1996 and the petition was dismissed on

4.9.1996 vide Ex.D.10.

He further submitted that PW.241-V.C.Perumal took

up investigation. The Government passed an order

directing to register a crime. Accordingly, Crime

No.13/1996 was registered for the offences punishable

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

Prevention of Corruption Act.

Sri L.Nageswar Rao, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the appellant in Crl.A.No.835/2014

argued as under:

He made submissions with regard to benami

transactions, i.e. any person on behalf the public servant.

The explanation under
Section 13(1)(e)
of the Prevention
of
Corruption Act
deals with known sources of income

received from any lawful source and intimated in

accordance with provisions of law, Rules or Orders. The

first part of the explanation deals with initial burden of

proof of prosecution. Then the public servant has to

establish his case by way of preponderance of probability.

Lawful source of income means income earned through a

source not forbidden in law. He also submitted in respect

of
Section 106
of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, particularly

on the word 'especially'. He quoted that as per the

Woolmington's case, everything has to be proved by the

prosecution which may not be valid. Two essential pre-

requisites for benami transactions are source of income

and intention. The prosecution has to prove these two

aspects. In other words, the person who asserts that

there is a benami transaction has to establish the same by

adducing evidence. In this case, the prosecution has not

adduced any evidence in respect of benami transactions.

The case cannot be decided on surmises and conjectures

and it has to be decided based on evidence. 'Any person

on his behalf' mentioned in
Section 13(1)(e)
of the

Prevention of Corruption Act refers to wife and unmarried
daughter.
Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act
came into

force from 19th May 1998.
Prevention of Corruption Act

was promulgated on 9th September 1989. Prior to 1989,

benami transaction was not prohibited. There is no

evidence to the effect that money has gone from A-1 to

the companies of A-2 to A-4.

He further submitted that the trial Court erred in

giving a finding that it cannot rely on the Income Tax

records on the basis of the decision in Lalu Prasad Yadav's

case. Lalu Prasad Yadav's case does not lay down any law

and only an observation is made during the course of

granting leave and on maintainability of the appeal

preferred by the State of Bihar.

He further submitted with regard to the expert

witnesses and how the expert witnesses have to be dealt

by the Courts. He invited the attention of the Court to

Section 45
of the Indian Evidence Act, i.e. Commentary on

Sarkar's Evidence. He invited the attention of the Court

to depositions of PWs.98, 116, 220 and exhibits P.649 and

P.671. He further submitted that the valuation of the

property is not based on scientific data. The Engineers
have not actually verified with the sellers or shopkeepers

about the value of the marbles, granites and other items.

They valued some of the items on lumpsum basis. This is

without any data. The price of marbles and granites

would have been ascertained for the check period, i.e.

1991 to 1996, but this has not been done so.

He further submitted that in respect of item No.179

situated at Grape Garden Farm House, Jedimetla,

Hyderabad, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has valued

the property at Rs.1.50 crore, whereas the Engineers of

Public Works Department, Government of AndhraPradesh,

have valued the same at Rs.6,40,33,901/-. In respect of

item No.181 situated at Door No.36, Poes Garden,

Chennai, including new construction made at No.36-A, the

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has valued the property at

Rs.2,11,85,400/-, whereas the Engineers of the Public

Works Department, Government of TamilNadu, have

valued the property at Rs.7,24,98,000/-. He further

submitted that scrutiny report is prepared by the

Assessment Officer in respect of marbles and granites and

the Assessing Officer visited Bombay to collect the value of

the marbles and granites and other similar items.
He further submitted that in TamilNadu, there is a

custom to give gifts to political leaders by way of cash,

gold, silver articles, etc. Gold is assessed at 21,280

grams. These items were indicated in Wealth Tax and

Income Tax returns. Wealth Tax was paid. Gifts are

lawful sources. There is no prohibition to receive gifts by

way of gold or silver articles. Some of the gold and silver

items were acquisitions were made prior to check period.

This has been indicated in the check period. This is highly

improper. Gift is permitted under the law. Acquisition of

property is very significant in so far as check period is

concerned. Check period will be decided by the

Investigating Agency. He further submits that Fire Engine

Water was used in order to push any gold articles hidden

in the water tubes, but in vain.

Section 114(d)
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,

deals with presumption. Earlier investigation conducted by

the Investigation Agency in Crime No.13/1996 registered

on 18.9.1996 has to be taken into consideration. Crime

No.14/1996 is the present crime number. Annexure-I

need not be explained because it is prior to check period.

Annexure-II is the property mentioned during the checked
period. This has to be satisfactorily explained by A-1.

Annexure-III relates to income during check period.

Section 69
of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deals with

unexplained income.
Section 122
of the Transfer of

Property Act deals with Gifts. Gold and silver articles

acquired prior to check period has been mixed up to the

articles acquired during the check period.

He further submitted that items of income is not

included in Annexure-III. According to the prosecution,

income from Grape Garden, Hyderabad is only Rs.5 lakh

during check period, i.e. for 5 years, whereas according to

A-1, it is Rs.52 lakh based on the income tax returns and

inspection carried out by the Income Tax Authorities. Gifts

were received in 1992. In 1991, A-1 became the Chief

Minister. Gifts and cash were received to the tune of

Rs.2.15 crore. Certain drafts were received from foreign

countries, to the tune of Rs.77 lakh. This was shown in

the income tax returns for the year 1992-93. The order

passed by the Assessing Authority was subject matter of

appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax which is at

Ex.P.2145. The Commissioner of Income Tax suggested

that they have taken it as professional tax because politics
is also a profession. The Commissioner of Income Tax who

passed this order was examined as PW.15. The gifts in the

form of gold jewellery were received prior to 1.7.1991, i.e.

prior to check period. This is not the subject matter of this

case. He further submits that he relies on the Appellate

Court Order, i.e. Ex.P.2145.

He further submits that 'Namadhu MGR' started in

the year 1989. It is a scheme. It is legally accepted by

the Authorities. DMK was formed in the year 1967. All

India Anna DMK was formed in the year 1972 by M.G.R.

He relies on Exs.D.217 and D.231, assessment for the year

1991-92.

He further submits that PW.181 was appointed by

the prosecution to ascertain the valuation of marriage

arrangements made at the choultry. He gave him the

drawing, choultry measurements and the pandal. He also

gave details of expenses of marriage arrangements.

DW.1-Ramkumar is the son of Sri.Shivaji Ganeshan. The

party-workers also contributed for the marriage. The bride

was the grand daughter of Sri.Shivaji Ganeshan. Notice

was issued to A-1 alleging that she has spent Rs.91 lakh.
Explanation was submitted by A-1. It was not accepted by

the Assessing Authority. The Appellate Authority accepted

the explanation. Evidence of PW.181 is hearsay. The

expenditure of the marriage is highly inflated. The value

of Tent or pandals were assessed at Rs.5,21,00,000/-.

Lawful source means not prohibited by law. Benami

transaction was a permitted activity prior to 1988. No

money has gone from A-1. The prosecution cannot infer

that money was spent by A-1. Transfer of money should

be established. The prosecution mixed up the properties

of A-1 to A-4. This is an error committed by the

prosecution.
Income Tax Act
is a fiscal statute.

Prevention of Corruption Act
is a penal statute.

Assessment order of the Income Tax proceedings was to

be given weightage in the absence of overwhelming

evidence of the prosecution. Income tax proceedings are

relevant. The trial Court ignored on the principle of

minimal evidentiary value and relied on the ruling of the

Patna High Court which was subsequently overruled.

Non-schedule items are marbles and granites.
Section 106

of the Indian Evidence Act was pressed into service by the

trial Court. Though there was a scrutiny, assessment,
enquiry, verifiable data, expertise, these aspects have not

been considered by the trial Court. Gold jewellery were

disclosed in Wealth Tax, Income Tax returns prior to check

period. Fixed deposit receipts prior to check period should

have been excluded.

He submitted that income from Jaya Publications

deals with printing. 'Namadhu MGR' deals with Newspaper.

Detailed enquiry was done by the Income Tax Authorities.

The basis for connecting A-1 with A-2 to A-4 and

'Namadhu MGR' is illegal. With regard to marriage

expenses, legal evidence is not looked into. The order

which is set-aside by the Assessing Officer is taken into

account. The case of A-1 was proved higher than the

preponderance of probability. The trial Court erred in

giving a finding that money has flown from A-1 to A-2 and

A-2 to A-4 and companies. On assumption and surmises,

the trial Court has come to a conclusion that money has

parted from A-1 to A-2 and A-2 to A-4. According to the

prosecution, A-3 and A-4 became Directors with effect

from 17.8.1994. A-2 to A-4 resigned from directorship

between 5.3.1996 to 12.3.1996. The company acquired

six properties between 26.5.1993 to 30.4.1996. After
accused Nos.3 and 4 became Additional Directors, no

properties were acquired. Ramraj Agro Mills Ltd.is a

publiclimited company existing since 1986. According to

the case of the prosecution, this Company has constructed

two servant quarters and a compound wall. Ex.P.822 is

the estimation report and cost of construction.

Nearly 65 rulings were cited by the learned

Senior Counsel Sri. L. Nageswara Rao and

Sri. B. Kumar appearing for the appellant in

Crl.A.835/2014, which are as follows:

1. VARKEY JOSEPH V/S. STATE OF KERALA
reported in 1993(3) SCC 745;

2. JAGAN M. SESHADRI V/S. STATE OF
TAMILNADU reported in (2002)9 SCC 639;

3. RAJARAM V/S. STATE OF RAJASTAN reported in
(2005)5 SCC 272;

4. KUNJU MUHAMMED @ KHUMANI & ANOTHER
V/S. STATE OF KERALA reported in (2004)9 SCC
193;

5. RAHIM KHAN V/S. KHURSHID AND OTHERS
reported in (1974)2 SCC 660;
6. ASHOK TSHERING BHUTIA V/S. STATE OF
SIKKIM reported in (2011)4 SCC 402;

7. DEVARAPALLI LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY &
ORS. V/S. V.NARAYANA REDDY & ORS. reported
in (1976)3 SCC 252;

8. P.SIRAJUDDIN, ETC. V/S. STATE OF MADRAS
ETC. reported in (1970)1 SCC 595;

9. LALITA KUMARI V/S. GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR
PRADESH & ORS. reported in (2014)2 SCC 1;

10. BABU RAO CHINCHANASUR V/S. STATE BY
LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, BANGALORE URBAN
DISTRICT, BANGALORE AND ANOTHER reported
in 2013(4) KCCR 3245;

11. H.N.RISHBUD & INDER SINGH V/S. STATE OF
DELHI reported in (1955)1 SCR 1150 : AIR
1955 SC 196 : 1955 CRL.LJ 526;

12. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. V/S. BHAJANLAL
& ORS. reported in 1992(1) SCC 335;

13. STATE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
VISHAKHAPATNAM V/S. SURYA SANKARAM
KARRI reported in 2006(7) SCC 172;

14. PULUKURI KOTTAYA AND OTHERS V/S.
EMPEROR reported in AIR(34) 1947 PRIVY
COUNCIL 67;
15. KRISHNANAND AGNIHOTRI V/S. THE STATE
OF MADHYAPRADESH reported in (1977)1 SCC
816;

16. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S. WASUDEO
RAMACHANDRA KAIDALWAR reported in
(1981)3 SCC 199;

17. M. KRISHNA REDDY V/S. STATE DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, HYDERABAD
reported in (1992)4 SCC 45;

18. CANBANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. V/S.
CUSTODIAN & OTHERS reported in (2004)8 SCC
355;

19. R. RAJAGOPAL REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. &
OTHERS V/S. PADMINI CHANDRASEKHARAN
(DEAD) BY LRS. reported in (1995)2 SCC 630;

20. ALLAHABAD BANK V/S. CANARA BANK &
ANOTHER reported in (2000)4 SCC 406;

21. MAYA MATHEW V/S. STATE OF KERALA AND
OTHERS reported in (2010)4 SCC 498;

22. THE UP STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD &
ANOTHER V/S. HARISHANKAR JAIN AND
OTHERS reported in (1978)4 SCC 16;

23. JAYADAYAL PODDAR (DECEASED) THROUGH
LRS AND ANOTHER V/S. MST. BIBI HAZRA
AND OTHERS reported in (1974)1 SCC 3;
24. VALLIAMMAL (D) BY LRS. V/S. SUBRAMANIAM
& OTHERS reported in (2004)7 SCC 233;

25. HEIRS OF VRAJLAL J. GANTARA V/S. HEIRS OF
PARSHOTTAM S. SHAH reported in (1996)4 SCC
490;

26. M.SREERAMULU V/S. STATE OF A.P. reported in
MANU/AP/1100/2003;

27. SHYAMA CHARAN SAXENA V/S.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX reported in
MANU/UP/0127/1983;

28. SUBHASH KHARATE V/S. STATE OF MP reported
in MANU/MP/0243/2000;

29. KALI RAM V/S. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773;

30. SHAMBU NATH MEHRA V/S. STATE OF AJMER
reported in 1956 SCR 199 : AIR 1956 SC 404 :

1956 CRL.LJ 794;

31. ATTYGALLE & ANOTHER V/S. THE KING
reported in 44 LW 86;

32. STEPHEN SENEVIVATNE V/S. THE KING
reported in 44 LW 661;
33. K.C.BUILDERS AND ANOTHER V/S. ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX reported in
(2004) SCC (CRL) 1092.

34. K.T.M.S.MOHD. & ANOTHER V/S. UNION OF
INDIA reported in (1992)3 SCC 178;

35. DSP, CHENNAI V/S. K.INBASAGARAN reported
in (2006)1 SCC 420;

36. RADESHYAM KEJRIWAL V/S. STATE OF WEST
BENGAL AND ANOTHER reported in (2011)3 SCC
581;

37. R.MARKANDAN(DIED) -

APPELLANT,USHPAVALLI - PROSECUTING
APPELLANT V/S. STATE OF INSPECTOR OF
POLICE reported in CRL.A.(MD) NO.1472/2002 &
M.P.NO.1/2010.

38. STATE OF BIHAR V/S. LALU PRASAD AND
ANOTHER reported in 2008 CRL.LJ 2433;

39.
LALU PRASAD YADAV & ANOTHER VS. STATE
OF BIHAR & ANOTHER
reported in 2010 (5) SCC
1;

40.
P. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY VS. STATE OF
ANDHRA PRADESH
reported in 1992 (4) SCC 39;

41.
SURAJ MAL VS. STATE (DELHI
ADMINISTRATION
) reported in 1979 (4) SCC
725;
42.
AKIL ALIAS JAVED VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI
)
reported in 2013 (7) SCC 124;

43.
GURCHARAN SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA

reported in MANU/PH/0827/1993;

44. DHANESWAR THAKUR VS. STATE OF PATNA
reported in MANU/BH/0132/1958;

45.
STATE OF H.P. VS. JAI LAL & OTHERS
reported
in 1999 (7) SCC 280;

46.
DAYAL SINGH & OTHERS VS. STATE OF
UTTARANCHAL
reported in 2012(8) SCC 263;

47.
SIDHARTHA VASHISHT ALIAS MANU SHARMA
VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI
) reported in 2010
(6) SCC 1;

48.
CHAND KAAN & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF UP

reported in 1995 (5) SCC 448;

49.
ABHAYA SOOD VS. BABU BATUK NATH &
OTHERS
reported in MANU/UP/2648/2012;

50.
BHAGIRATH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

reported in 1976 (1) SCC 20;

51.
RAMESH CHANDEA AGRAWAL VS. REGENCY
HOSPITAL
reported in 2009 (9) SCC 709;

52.
KESHAV DUTT VS. STATE OF HARYANA
reported
in 2010 (9) SCC 286;
53.
M. KRISHNA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA

reported in 1999 (3) SCC 247;

54. P. NALLAMAL & ANOTHER VS. STATE
REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
reported in 1999 (6) SCC 559;

55.
C.S.D. SWAMI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB
reported
in 1960 (1) SCR 461;

56.
RAMAIAH ALIAS RAMA VS. STATE OF
KARNATAKA
reported in 2014 (9) SCC 365;

57. R.V.E. VENKATACHALA GOUNDER VS.

ARULMIGU VISWESWARASWAMI & V.P.
TEMPLE AND ANOTHER reported in 2003 (8)
SCC 742;

58.
FAIZ MURATAZA ALI VS. COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX
reported in 2013 SCC ONLINE DEL.

717;

59. HEAVY ENGINEERING MAZDOOR UNION V/S/
STATE OF BIHAR & OTHERS. reported in 1969
(1) SCC 765;

60.
WESTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED VS. SPECIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KORBA &
ANOTHER
reported in 1982 (1) SCC 125;
61.
ANEETA HADA VS. GODFATHER TRAVELS AND
TOURS PRIVATE LIMITED
reported in 1986 (2)
SCC 661;

62.
R.S. NAYAK VS. A.R. ANTULAY & ANOTHERS

reported in 1986 (2) SCC 716;

63. WOOLMINGTON VS. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
PROSECUTIONS reported in
MANU/UKHL/0002/1935;

64.
K. VEERASWAMI VS. UNION OF INDIA AND
OTHERS
reported in 1991 (3) SCC 655

65. R. RAJAGOPAL ALIAS R.R. GOPAL AND
ANOTHER VS. STATE OF T.N. AND OTHERS
reported in 1994(6) SCC 632;

Sri. R. Basant, the learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant in Crl.A. No.836/2014

submits that accused No.2 is woman having means. She

was carrying on business viz., Vinod Video Vision prior to

coming in contract with accused No.1. He submits that

what is not prohibited is lawful as per explanation to

Section 13(1)(e)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The

Investigating Officer have put properties of accused Nos.1,

2, 3, 4, firms and companies in one basket and assessed

the value of assets of the accused and entities to the
extent of Rs.64,42,89,616/-. He also made submission

with regard
Section 106
of the Indian Evidence Act. He

submits that initial burden is on the prosecution to prove

its case and after the prosecution discharged the initial

burden, the burden shifts on the defence. In case if the

investigation agency is unable to investigate in respect of

the income of the accused, then
Section 106
of the Indian

Evidence Act has to be pressed into service. He also

submitted according to the DVAC manual, the

Investigation Officer was authorized to collect proceedings

from the Income Tax Department. He also submits that

trial is not fair and charges are vague. No funds have

been transferred from the account of A-1 to A-2. Accused

No.2 is a Wealth Tax Assessee in the year 1987-88. She

was Income Tax assessee way back in the year 1993.

Accused No.2 was having sufficient income. He has invited

the attention of this Court to the depositions of PWs.94,

98, 107, 116, 117, 155, 144, 149, 182, 190, 198, 201,

220, 238 and Exs.P46, P61, P241, P.242, P245, P279,

P664, P673, P788, P798, P910, P911, P1189, P1207,

P1377, P1510, P1903, P1921, P1922, P1940, P2081,

P2191, P2208, P2209, P2245, P2264, P2316, and
Exs.D220, D218, D239, D254, D261, D272, D273, D290,

D297, D300, D305, D371, D376, D377. He has cited the

following rulings:

1.
OMA @ OMPRAKASH & ANOTHER V/S STATE
OF TAMILNADU
reported in 2013(3) SCC 440;

2. STATE OF TAMIL NADU V/S. J. JAYALALITHA
reported in 2000(5) SCC 440;

3. SHIV KUMAR V/S. HUKAM CHAND &
ANOTHER reported in 1999(7) SCC 467;

4. B. JANAKIRAMAIAH CHETTY V/S. A.K.
PARTHASARATHI & OTHERS reported in 2002
CRL.L.J. 4062;

5. SRI. K.V. SHIVA REDDY V/S. STATE OF
KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY &
OTHERS reported in ILR 2005 KAR 4780.

Sri T.Sudanthiram, the learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant in Crl.A. Nos.

837/2014 and 838/2014 submits that in respect of six

Companies particularly, in respect of Super Duper TV Pvt.

Ltd., investigation agency has not collected any evidence

to establish the offence punishable under
Sections 109
and

120-B
of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution has to

stand on its own legs and not on the weakness of the
defence. There is no direct evidence in respect of accused

Nos.3 and 4. There is no evidence with regard to the

source of income which has been parted from accused

No.1 into the accounts of accused Nos.3 and 4. He has

cited the following rulings:

1. P. NALLAMAL & ANOTHER VS. STATE
REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
reported in 1999 (6) SCC 559;

2.
DR. S. L .GOSWAMI V/S STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH
reported in 1972 (3) SCC 22;

3.
NARENDRA SINGH & ANOTHER V/S STATE
OF MADHYA PRADESH
reported in 2004(10)
SCC 699;

4.
RUSTOM CAVASJEE COOPER V/S UNION OF
INDIA
reported in 1970 (1) SCC 248;

5.
SUJIT BISWAS V/S STATE OF ASSAM
reported
in 2013 (12) SCC 406;

6.
PADAM SINGH V/S STATE OF UP
reported in
AIR 2000 SC 361.

Sri.Udaya Holla, the learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellants in Crl.A. Nos.

17/2015, 19/2015 and 20/2015 submits that no notice has

been issued to the appellants. Without issuing the notice,

passing an order of confiscation is bad in law. He further
submits that Ramraj Agro Mills Pvt. Ltd. is a public limited

company. The other companies are private limited

companies. They are not individuals. Therefore, without

issuing notice to the Managing Director or to the Company

Secretary, passing an order of confiscation is not proper.

Therefore, he seeks to set-aside the impugned order of

attachment and confiscation. He has cited the following

rulings:

1. STATE BANK OF INDIA V/S. RAJENDRA
KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS reported in AIR
1969 SUPREME COURT 401;

2. MRS. BACHA F. GUZDAR, BOMBAY V/S.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY
reported in AIR 1955 SUPREME COURT 74(1);

3. ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.

AND OTHERS V/S. SECRETARY, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH
& OTHERS reported in 1999(4) SUPREME
COURT CASES 458;

Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, the learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant in Crl.A. No. 18/2015

submits that without issuing notice to the concerned party,
passing an order of confiscation and attachment is bad in

law.

Sri.Aditya Sondhi, the learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellants in Crl.A. Nos.

21/2015 and 22/2015 submits that the notice prior to an

order under
Section 452
of Cr.P.C. is must. He further

submits that even where the accused has participated in

the Trial, separate notice and inquiry must be carried out

prior to passing an order under
Section 452
of Cr.P.C. He

further submits that the learned Trial Judge has failed to

appreciate that the appellant is a separate legal entity that

is distinct from its Directors viz., accused Nos.3 and 4.

The impugned order is vitiated as the appellant, being a

separate legal entity having a distinct character ought to

have been necessarily arraignedas an accused. The

learned Trial Judge has failed to consider the documents

pertaining to the appellant hadnot discussed with respect

to the appellant in the impugned order. The appellant was

subjected to the proceedings under
Section 148
of the

Income Tax Act, 1961, for income escaping assessment.

He further submits that after due enquiry, the

Income Tax Authority recorded the statement of individual
shareholders of the appellant, who have contributed to its

share capital and dropped the proceedings and it became

final. The Department of Revenue has not preferred any

revision. In such circumstances, it is clear that the

property is duly that of the appellant and there is no

consideration towards purchase of property that has

flowed from accused Nos.3 and 4 much less, accused No.1,

who is a public servant. The initial burden lies on the

prosecution. This burden has to be strictly discharged by

adducing legal evidence of a definite character. It is not

enough merely to show circumstance that may show

suspicion as the Court cannot decide on the basis of

suspicion but must act on the acceptable evidence. The

prosecution must discharge this burden beyond reasonable

doubt. The prosecution has failed to show that any

consideration has move from A-1 towards acquisition of

property in question. He further submits that the share

capacity of the appellant is Rs.1.32 Crores subscribed by

independent shareholders. He draws the attention of this

Court to Ex.D193 (Volume IX, Page 171). The said share

capital is more than sufficient to acquire the assets, which

are valued at around Rs.18 Lakhs. Further, the appellant
has its own bank account. Attention of this Court was

drawn to Ex.P1294 (Volume IX, Page 104). The sale deed

through which the properties purchased are duly

registered. The mode of payment was through the

Demand Drafts. The vendors of the sale deeds have also

deposed in this regard.

He has cited the following rulings:

1. STATE BANK OF INDIA V/S. RAJENDRA
KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS reported in AIR
1969 SUPREME COURT 401;

2. ISMAIL S/O IBRAHIM SAVAL V/S. STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER in Crl.A.
No.200/1994;

3. N. MADHAVAN V/S. STAE OF KERALA reported
in 1979(4) SCC 1;

4. BASAPPA DURGAPP KURUBAR & ORS. V/S.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER
reported in 1977 Cri.L.J. 1541;

5.
RUSTOM CAVASJEE COOPER V/S UNION OF
INDIA
reported in 1970 (1) SCC 248;

6. SOLOMON V/S. A SALOMON & CO. LTD.,
reported in 1897 AC 22;
7. VODAFONE HOLDINGS B.V. V/S. UNION OF
INDIA & ANOTHER reported in (2012) 6 SCC
613;

8. ANEETA HADA V/S. GODFATHER TRAVELS &
TOURS PVT. LTD., reported in 2012(5) SCC
661;

9. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V/S.
SOPHIA FINANCE LTD., reported in 1994 205
ITR 98;

10. DSP CHENNAI V/S. K. INBASAGARAN
reported in 2006(1) SCC 420;

11. M. KRISHNA REDDY V/S. STATE DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, HYDERABAD,
reported in 1992 (4) SCC 45;

12. KTMS MOHD. & ANOTHER V/S. UNION OF
INDIA reported in 1992 (3) SCC 178;

13. KRISHNANAND AGNIHOTRI V/S THE STATE
OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in 1971 (1)
SCC 816;

14. KHALID PARWES V/S. COMPETENT
AUTHORITY AND ADMINISTRATIVE &
OPPOSITE PARTIES in OJC NO.6466/2013
Learned Special Public Prosecutor, Sri. B.V.

Acharya has filed the written arguments on behalf of

the State of Karnataka as under:

The appeals filed by the appellants are not

maintainable in law. According to the law settled by the

Supreme Court, the sole prosecuting agency is the State of

Karnataka and in the appeals, the Public Prosecutor validly

appointed by the State of Karnataka has to be heard. In all

the above appeals, very significantly, the State of

Karnataka which is the sole prosecuting agency has not

been made a party. Omission to implead the State of

Karnataka as a party is a fatal defect and as the defect has

not been cured even subsequently, aforesaid appeals are

liable to be dismissed in limine as not maintainable. Order

of conviction cannot be set-aside as claimed by the

appellants unless the sole prosecuting agency viz., State of

Karnataka is made a party. The prosecution has fixed the

check period as 1.7.1991 to 30.4.1996. There is charge of

conspiracy against all the four accused punishable under

Section 120-B
of IPC. There is also an alternate charge

that accused Nos.2 to 4 have abetted the commission of

the offence by the 1st accused under
Section 13(1)(e)
of
Prevention of Corruption Act
, read with
Section 13(2)
of

the Act. It is the prosecution case that A1 is a public

servant and has abused the position as Chief Minister of

the State and has amassed wealth disproportionate to her

known source of income. It is the case that all the four

accused have conspired for committing these offences and

Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 have actively assisted A1 in

achieving this object. In the present case, it is the case of

the prosecution that all the assets have been acquired by

accused No.1 in her name or in the name of other accused

or in the name of as many as 32 business enterprises of

which one or the other accused have been acquired in the

name of these companies is established by documentary

evidence on record and the same is beyond dispute. In

this connection, reference is drawn to the evidence of

PW71- Radhakrishnan, Officer of the Horticulture

Department who speaks about the circumstances under

which various items of agricultural lands were purchased.

Reference is also drawn to the evidence of PW94-

Lakshminarayana who speaks about the registration of

various firm/companies. So also PW159-Rajagopalan

speaks about registration of documents at the residence of
A1 at Chennai. It is the contention of the accused that the

prosecution has failed to prove that all these assets have

been acquired from out of the funds of accused No.1. It is

no doubt true that the prosecution has to establish that

the properties have been acquired from out of the ill-

gotten wealth of accused No.1. According to the

prosecution this part of the case has been very

satisfactorily established by the prosecution by leading

clinching circumstantial evidence. It is not prudent to

expect direct evidence on this aspect. The same has to be

only by way of circumstantial evidence. A case of the

conspiracy is generally proved only be leading

circumstantial evidence and the Court will have to draw

proper inferences from the circumstances which are

established in the case. In the present case, such evidence

proving various circumstances from which the required

inference can be drawn has been proved. It is settled law

that the court will have to consider the cumulative effect of

all the circumstances so proved and not merely refer to

certain circumstances here and there and say that the case

has not been proved. It is established that accused Nos.1

to 4 were residing together in No.36, Poes Garden, which
is the official residence of accused No.1 That they were

residing together, coupled with other circumstances show

that they have acted in concert. Admittedly, A1 and A2 are

partners in Jaya Publication and Sasi Enterprises. In fact, it

is in evidence that most of the registered Sale Deeds have

been actually registered at the residence of accused No.1

by the Registrar who has come to her house for the said

purpose. These are some of the significant features of this

case. It is also in evidence that neither A2, A3, A4 had any

independent source of income to acquire such valuable

properties. The status and income of accused No.1 has

been discussed by the Trial Judge in para-95 of the

judgment. Similarly, A3 and A4 also did not have

independent income earlier to the check period. It is in

evidence that A3 is none other than foster son of A1 and

he is also a close relative of A2. The relationship between

A2 and A4 is also admitted. The trial Judge on an elaborate

discussion of the evidence on record has rightly come to

the conclusion that none of these accused had any

independent source of income to purchase the valuable

assets which admittedly have been purchased in the

names of various companies of which, either A2 or A3 or
A4 were partners or Directors. Some of the companies

which were not doing any business or profit have been

acquired by A2, A3 and A4 only for the purpose of

acquiring properties, source of which is from Accused No.1.

Thus, it has to be noted that the Trial Judge has relied on

only such circumstances which are very satisfactorily

established by the documentary evidence only. The trial

Court in its judgment at para-97 has pointed out that how

huge unexplained cash amounts were credited into the

various accounts standing in the name of accused or the

companies owned by them. He has also pointed out how

the accused have failed to explain these credits. The trial

Court has also pointed out that how though there were

different accounts in different Banks in the name of

different companies, the accused were treating all these

accounts as one by transfer of funds from one account to

other without any reason. The trial Court on appreciation

of the entire evidence on record, it will be seen that during

the check period, accused No.1 was found to be in

possession of assets and pecuniary resource of not less

than Rs.55 crores though the said assets have been

standing in the names of A1 to A4 or the various
Companies owned by them. It is contended that in view of

the provisions of
Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act

1988, (hereinafter referred to as
Benami Act
) are not

attracted to the facts of the present case. The Legislature

realizing that offence of acquiring disproportionate assets

is generally resorted to by acquiring property in the name

of any other person has deliberately used the expression

"he or any person on his behalf is in possession". If in a

given case, it is shown that the consideration for acquiring

the property as flown from the public servant concerned,

he is guilty of the offence even though the property may

stand in the name of any other person or company. In the

instant case, the circumstances clearly establish that it is

in effect, accused No.1 who has been in possession of the

property or pecuniary resource though the same may be

standing in the name of different person or companies.

Hence, the arguments based on
Benami Act
is liable to be

rejected. The accused Nos.1 and 2 in an attempt to

disprove the case of the prosecution have tried to establish

that during the check period, Jaya Publications of which

they are the partners, they have received interest free

deposit to the extent of 13 crores and odd from thousands
of subscribers on promise of supply of free copies of the

magazine. According to the prosecution, this whole claim is

false and in an attempt to substantiate this claim, accused

No.1 and 2 have not only put forward a false case, but

have also fabricated evidence. According to the accused,

the scheme was formulated in 1990 and that substantial

sum was to the extent of over 13 Crores were collected for

the assessment year 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95. It is

very significant to note that during this period, neither

accused Nos.1 and 2 in their individual capacity nor the

firm Jaya Publications filed any income tax returns. The

returns showing receipt of this interest free deposit are

filed before the Income Tax authorities only after the

registration of the present case and filing of the charge

sheet. In fact, the returns for assessment year 1992-93

was filed on 6.11.1998 and for 1994-95 were filed on

17.03.1998. Evidently, the accused have thought of

putting forward this theory of deposit claim after the

registration of the present case. It is seen that in doing so,

the accused were trying to get the assistance of the

authorities of the Income Tax by filing belated returns.

However, when the Income Tax Authorities sought the
original subscription forms on behalf of the accused, it was

submitted that those forms, counterfoils etc., which are

kept in a cardboard box in a Tata Sumo vehicle parked in a

hotel and the same are missing. It was also claimed that a

complaint in this behalf had been given to the Police, but

no document is produced to prove this fact. It is

interesting to note that though these documents are

claimed to have been lost during the trial, the accused

surprisingly summoned these very documents from the

Income Tax Authorities and that were produced before the

Court. The learned trial Judge on a detailed examination of

the evidence with regard to these documents has come to

the conclusion that they all appeared to have been

fabricated. The circumstances establish beyond doubt that

the theory of receipt of interest free deposit over 13 crores

is only an afterthought invented for the purpose of this

case. The trial Court in para- 50 of the judgment has

discussed the evidence on this aspect and has categorically

come to the conclusion that not only the evidence

tendered in this behalf is false, but several documents

have been fabricated. DW.88-Auditor who is a star witness

has clearly contradicted himself on several aspects as
pointed out by the Trial Court. This conclusion arrived at

by the learned judge is fully justified on the material on

record and to avoid repetition, it is prayed that this Court

may be pleased to peruse the discussion at para-50.1 till

para 50.23. The result of the discussion is not only to show

that the so called explanation offered by the accused is

false, but also that the accused have fabricated the

evidence in support of their case. It is submitted that to

the extent of 13 Crores and odd even on the admission of

the accused, there is disproportionate asset if the

explanation by way of receipt of interest free deposit is

found to be not true. In the circumstances, adverse

inference will have to be drawn against the accused and

the consequent result is at least to the extent of Rs.13

Crores and odd, the case of the prosecution regarding

possession of the disproportionate asset or pecuniary

resources finds full corroboration. If on this aspect of the

matter, the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court is

correct, to the extent of Rs.13 Crores, the Prosecution

evidences gets corroborates from the version of the

accused themselves. The expenditure incurred by the

accused during the check period was a sum of
Rs.12,00,59,338.76/-. To substantiate the case of the

prosecution, 42 witnesses were examined in this regard.

The evidence of these witnesses is cogent and consistent

and the accused have not been able to elicit much in the

cross-examination. One such item of expenditure included

a sum of Rs.6,47,04,222/- which were expenses incurred

by accused No.1 for the purpose of the marriage of her

foster son accused No.3. The special Judge after giving due

consideration to the evidence on record has given valid

reasons justifying the reduction of this expenses to about

Rs.3 Crores and also taking into consideration various

other expenses incurred has arrived at the final value of

expenditure of Rs.8,49,06,833/-. This amount arrived at is

on the basis of the entire evidence being appropriately

scrutinized and no other conclusion can be arrived at on

the basis of the material on record. The case of the

prosecution was that there were 306 items of assets

acquired by the accused. These items were substantiated

through documents and also through various witnesses

examined in this behalf. As against the said 306 items, the

Special Judge has scrutinized each item in detail and has

given a finding that the value of the assets acquired during
the check period was Rs.55,02,48,215/-. This value arrived

at is after giving deduction to various items which

according to the special Judge, the prosecution had not

been able to fully establish. The values arrived at was on

the basis of the evidence of valuers who were examined as

prosecution witnesses and on the basis of the documents

in support of the acquisition of these assets. The trial

Court in para 87.9 has in a tabular form extracted the

nature of the assets and its corresponding value which the

prosecution has been able to prove through cogent and

consistent evidence. It is the case of the prosecution that

during the check period, the 1st accused with the

assistance of other accused has acquired and come into

possession of various assets both movable and immovable.

It is significant to note that acquisition of these properties

cannot be disputed as they are all covered by registered

documents. Even if the evidence regarding payment of

cash over and above the price shown in the Sale Deeds are

excluded, over more than Rs.20 Crores have been paid

towards the price of these properties and regarding this

acquisition, there cannot be any dispute at all. That these

properties have been acquired in the names of various
companies in which the accused are interested either as

Partners or Directors is also beyond doubt. The prosecution

has established that none of the accused had any

independent means to pay and purchase these properties

by paying valuable consideration. In the circumstances,

the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court that the

accused have acquired these immovable properties is

beyond any challenge. Item No.3 in para 87.9 shows the

new or additional construction of buildings and the total

value of which exceeds Rs.22 Crores. The gold and

diamond jewellery found is also more than Rs.2.5 Crores.

The Shares and Fixed Deposit which are beyond dispute

are also to the extent of Rs.3 Crores and 42 Lakhs and

odd. The value of the vehicles as found in column 8 is also

to the extent of Rs.1,29,00,000/-. Thus, in paragraph

87.9, the trial Court has rightly concluded that the

prosecution has proved beyond doubt the acquisition of

disproportionate assets to the extent of Rs.55 Crores. The

finding recorded by the Trial Court does not suffer from

any infirmity and there are no grounds made out for

interference by this Court.
Dr. Subramanian Swamy, the original

complainant, has filed his written arguments as

under:

A-1 was the Chief Minister of Tamilnadu from

24.6.1991 till 30.9.1996. She along with A-2 to A-3

amassed wealth disproportionate to their known sources of

income. Earlier to this, she was a member of Rajya Sabha

from April 1984 till 27.1.1989 till 30.1.1991. She was a

public servant within the meaning of
Section 2(b)
of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Crime

No.13/AC/96/HQ was registered for the offences

punishable under
Sections 13(2)
and
13(1)(e)
of the

Prevention of Corruption Act against A-1 and others.

A-1 was the daughter of late Smt. N.R.Sandhya, who

was acting in Films during 1960s. A-1 was acting in Films

during 1964-1972. Smt. N.R.Sandhya died in the year

1971. As per the Will dated 1.11.1971, she bequeathed

her shares in the properties belonging to Natyakala

Nikethan to A-1. At the time of her mother's death, A-1

was owning the following properties.

a) Land and building at No.36, Poes Garden,
Chennai-600086.
b) House at Plot No.36, Door No.8/3/1099,
Srinagar Officers' Colony, Hyderabad City.

c) Lands totally measuring 10.20 acres in
Survey No.52 and Sy.No.50 of Jeedi Metla
Village and Sy.No.93/1 of Pet Basheerabad
Village, Metchal Taluk, Ranga Reddy
District, Andhra Pradesh with Grape Garden,
Farm House and servants' quarters
purchased in 1968 valued at Rs.1,65,058/-
plus Rs.13,254.50.

The above three items were bequeathed to A-1
by her mother through Will dated 1.11.1971.

d) Land in Sy.No.93/2 to the extent of 3.15
acres in Pet Basheerabad Village, Andhra
Pradesh.

Up to 1987, A-1 was in possession of properties

worth about 7.5 lakhs, i.e. item Nos.(a) to (d) mentioned

above, agricultural lands measuring 3.43 acres in Cheyyur

Taluk, an old Ambassador and an old Contessa Car, a new

Maruti Car and company shares, bank balance to the

extent of Rs.1 lakh, besides jewels.

He further states that A-1 had floated business

Firms, viz. M/s. Jaya Publications, Namadu MGR and

M/s.Sasi Enterprises in the between 1988 to 1990 with A-2

and others as partners of these Firms. These Firms did not

generate any income. From 13.5.1988 to 27.1.1989, she

was a member of Parliament. A-1 has purchased four
motor cars worth Rs.9,12,129/- and on 13.2.1989, she

purchased a Jeep worth Rs.1,04,000/-. Check Period is

from 1.7.1991 to 30.4.1996. As on 1.7.1991, A-1 was

found to be in possession of properties and pecuniary

resources in her name and in the name of A-2, who was

living with her, to the extent of Rs.2,01,83,957/-. These

include the properties acquired in the name of M/s.Jaya

Publications, M/s.Sasi Enterprises and Namadu MGR. After

1.7.1991, the acquired assets by A-1 has gathered

momentum and during this period, A-3 and A-4 came to

live with A-1 and A-2 at No.36, Poes Garden, Chennai-86.

During this period, A-1 and A-2 along with A-3 and A-4

floated 32 Partnership Firms/Companies, which are

mentioned in the charge sheet. During the above period,

there was no business activity in the above mentioned

Firms/Companies. The activities were more in the nature

of acquiring lands, machinery, buildings and vehicles which

were not production-oriented. No income tax returns were

filed by these Firms as expected by law. No assessment

for commercial tax has also been done with respect to the

businesses of these Firms. They have not filed their

returns. A-1 has also not filed her income tax returns for
the assessment years 1987-88 till November 1992. When

this issue was raised by the complainant, A-1 filed income

tax returns for the above periods in November 1992.

Subsequent to 1.7.1991, assets in the forms of movable

and immovable properties and pecuniary resources like

bank deposits, etc. are found acquired not only in the

name of A-1 but also in the names of A-2 to A-4 and the

Firms floated in their names. A scrutiny of the various

bank accounts maintained in the names of A-1 to A-4 and

in the names of different Firms disclose that huge credits

in cash and 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 amount between one account to the

others to facilitate illegal acquisition of assets. The huge

quantum of such assets when viewed along with the facts

that A-1 was holding the office of Chief Minister and that

A-2 to A-4 were living under the same roof with A-1 and

not having sufficient means to acquire the assets in their

names have established that the assets were actually

acquired only by A-1. There was thus criminal conspiracy

between A-1 and her associates, A-2 to A-4 to possess
properties and pecuniary resources by A-1 in her name

and in the names of A-2 to A-4 and in the names of

various Firms floated by them. Further, A-2 to A-4 had

pursuant to the said conspiracy held the said properties

and pecuniary resources in their names and in the names

of the Firms floated by them on behalf of A-1. Pursuant to

the said conspiracy, the properties, expensive jewellery

and pecuniary resources were acquired by A-1 in her name

and in the names of A-2 to A-4 and also in the names of

various Firms. As on 30.4.1996, the assets thus acquired

and possessed by A-1 are found to be worth

Rs.66,44,73,573/-.

He further states that in the present case, the

prosecution has clearly proved beyond reasonable doubt

that the accused persons possess properties

disproportionate to their known sources of income. The

burden is shifted to the accused to satisfactorily account

for the properties acquired. The accused were unable to

account for disproportionate assets even through

preponderance of probabilities.
He further states that financial status of A-1 prior to

her joining as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu also has to be

taken note of Ms. J. Jayalalitha, who showed 'NIL' Income

and Wealth in 1985-86, she ceased to be an actress since

1979. After becoming Chief Minister, she doubled her

income, tripled her wealth despite of drawing only Rs.1/-

per month as salary of Chief Minister. It is obvious she is

some kind of financial wizard.

He further states that A-1's Wealth in the year 1992-

93, in her returns, it is stated by her to be about

Rs.6,00,00,000/- (Rupees Six Crores). This is unbelievable

and represents ill-gotten wealth. Income tax authorities

have sent her a notice on 14.12.1992. Notice sent was

under
Section 16
of the Wealth Tax Act and
Section 148
of

Income Tax Act.

He further states that A-1 owns 10 acres of Grape-

Wine Farm land in Hyderabad. She has claimed income of

about Rs.1 Lakh per acre from that Farm, after she

became the Chief Minister of Tamilnadu. When her

position grows, the yield also grows. There is no reason

why no such abnormal and unbelievable agricultural
income during the past years when she was not the Chief

Minister. In fact, she was not in a position to build a Farm

House with her own funds. The large scale of corruption

engaged by A-1 after she becomes the Chief Minster

clearly comes out when one considers her poverty status in

1986 when she had taken a loan of nearly Rs.4 lakhs from

Mr.Ramaswamy Wodeyar, the Liquor Baron, on

instructions from the former Chief Minister

M.G.Ramachandran to build her Farm House in Hyderabad.

She was a debtor in 1986. She took salary of Rs.1/-. She

earned wealth in multi-crores without doing any gainful

work.

He further states that after A-1 became the Chief

Minister, her financial status was not sound. She had an

intention of purchasing 1.1378 grounds comprised in

R.S.No.1567 of 63, Plot No.31-A, Block No.31, Mylapore

Division, adjacent to her house No.36, Poes Garden, but

the land owner was reluctant not to sell the same. The

normal market value of 1.1378 grounds in 1991 was more

than Rs.45 Lakhs. But this land was purchased and

registered on 26.7.1992 for Rs.8 Lakhs. Her financial

position was not sound to pay the sale consideration
amount by a single cheque. But she paid by three

cheques, one for Rs.1 lakh, another for Rs.4 lakhs and

another cheque for Rs.3 lakhs.

He further states that defence witness examined in

this case have not adduced any valuable evidence to

discard the prosecution evidence satisfactorily account for

the possession of huge assets disproportionate to the

known sources of income of A-1. The calculation adduced

by the defence witness does not tally with the income

shown by the prosecution for A-1 to A-4 and the Firms.

The evidence of defence witnesses for giving money to the

Firms are not supported by any documentary, legal

evidence and cannot be accepted as a lawful source of

income. Moreover, cross-examination of these witnesses

have established the fact that their claims were not based

on any documentary proof, but are merely oral. They

have come forward at a belated stage in order to save the

accused from the criminal liability.

He further states that the plea taken by the A-1 in

paragraphs 15 to 18 of the grounds of the appeal that

since income tax authorities had compounded the offences
of A-1, failure to file income tax returns under
Section 279

of the Income Tax Act and by paying the dues and penalty,

A-1 had been exonerated of any amassing of wealth

illegally has no relevance in these proceedings in appeal

herein, since it is well settled that such compounding has

no bearing on prosecution.

He further states that as per paragraph-14 of the

grounds of appeal, income tax authorities had "accepted"

her statement of income to be "true and genuine". This is

false. Income tax authorities have not made and cannot

make any admission under Section 279 or any other

provisions of the
Income Tax Act
. Thus, A-1 and others

cannot escape from the clutches of the
Prevention of

Corruption Act
on the basis of disposal of the case on

compounding of the same under the
Income Tax Act
and

take shelter in this appeal under this guise of compounding

of the offences under the
Income Tax Act
. The findings

rendered by the Income Tax Department under Section

279 would not be binding on the trial Court or in the

adjudication of this appeal. What is more serious is that

the income tax compounding procedure was restricted to

the recovery of the income tax due and an agreement to
pay the same by A-1 willingly. It does not in any way

represent legal vindication of any claims of A-1 and how

the income she claimed was earned.

He further states that the money flow chart

establishes that the ill-gotten money which was deposited

by cash into the accounts of the accused persons and the

companies floated by them was indeed used by them to

purchase the properties and to acquire other assets. The

matrix of arguments of A-1 and the grounds adduced are

either vague or exaggerated or full of weak or bald

assertion without any factual basis and stretches of

credibility beyond human credulity as shown in

paragraphs-116, 119 and 136 of the grounds of the

appeal. Grounds urged in the Crl.A.No.835/2014 is vague,

without merits and devoid of substance. Therefore, he

requests to confirm the conviction and the sentence

imposed by the trial Court.

The written arguments filed by the third

party/intervener are as under:

Most of the witnesses upto PW.57 speak about the

sale of land to various business persons and accused
persons. PWs.58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68

and 69- speak about sale of various vehicles to the

accused persons. PW.69-R. Rajendran is the Registrar

working as RTO, Chennai and he speaks about all the

registrations which had taken place. PW.71-S.

Radhakrishnan is the Horticultural Officer. He speaks about

purchase of lands by A3-V.N. Sudhakaran in Tirunelvleli by

Riverway Agro Products and also about the service

connections, etc. bought by the above A3-Mr. Sudhakaran.

PW73- Murugesan, Village Administrative Officer was

directed by PW.71 to give a lesser market value for the

property. The lands were measured with police protection.

PW76-Siva is the Real Estate agent who speaks about how

A4 purchased the lands with the help of Mr. Rajagopalan,

Registrar and Horticultural Officer Mr. Radhakrishnan.

PW77-Janaki, Sub Registrar, speaks about the pressure

bought upon her by A3 to register the property for less

than the guideline value.

Evidence of PWs.83 and 84- Devarajan and

Ayyadurai would clearly reveal that he was taking active

part in the purchase of the vehicle for Jaya Publication

which was to be used by her.
The vehicles were inspected by A1 and A2 which

would show their close proximity in business transactions.

PW.94 - Lakshmi Narayana is a star witness who

speaks about the registration of companies and who were

also inducted as Directors in the companies. This witness

clearly reveals that the accused persons were all Directors

of the Companies during the check period. PW95-Balu

speaks about the leasing of premises for the Lex Properties

Private Limited by A3. PW.96-Anilkumar Reddy speaks

about transfer of Meadow Agro Farms which again and had

no business to A4. PW100-Prabas Kumar Reddy speaks

about sale of his apartment for Rs.30,00,580/- to Lex

Properties Pvt. Limited.

PW.107-Soman assessed Siruthavur Bungalow at

Rs.5,40,52,298/-. Payanoor Bungalow at Rs.1,25,90,261/-

Anjaneya Printers Namadhu MGR building at

Rs.2,13,63,457/-. PW.115-Mariappan values the

machineries at Anjaneya Printers and Metal King at

Rs.3,05,00,088/- and Rs.7,69,000/- respectively. PW.116-

Jayapaul, Executive Engineer verified the Poes Garden

building and valued at Rs.7,24,98,000/-. PW117-Era

Govindan, Executive Engineer valued three buildings at
ECR Road at Rs.10,47,446/-, Rs.90,17,557/-,

Rs.28,01,811/- and Rs.80,75,000/-. PW123-

Srinivasamurthy, Sales Tax Officer deposed that from 1996

June to 1998 June, registration was done in his office for

Jaya Publications having No.36, Poes Garden, Chennai as

address. This is the official residence of Selvi. Jayalalitha.

No returns were filed till 1998. PW125-Vasudevan,

Assessing Officer values the gold and diamond jewelry at

Rs.33,50,043/- marked as MOs.2 to 608. PW159-

Rajagopalan, Sub Registrar of North Chennai Registration

officer speaks about the registration of documents at the

residence of A1 to A4 and registering the documents were

done without names of the purchaser and about non-

payment of stamp duty, which are abuse of power. He also

speaks that the registration of properties pertaining to

other Districts of Tamil Nadu, beyond his jurisdiction were

registered in his office at Chennai, by abuse of power.

PW.182-Arunachalam who was working as Chief Manager,

Indian Bank, Regional Branch had deposed that A2 and her

accessories had account in Abiramapuram Branch when he

was working from December 1995. He speaks about how
monies were transferred from one account to the other

and went into the accounts of various companies.

PWs.185 and 186-A. Premkumar and Chalapathy Rao

respectively speak about the services rendered by them for

the marriage of V.N. Sudhakaran and that they received

cheques signed by A1.

PW.197 - Yoganand, Accountant at Petrol Bunk,

Alwarpet. He used to fill petrol for vehicles belonging to

Jaya Publications, Sasi Enterprise and Namadhu MGR to

the tune of Rs.10,09,419/- and he received a cheque for

Rs.9,73,402/- signed by A1, A2. This will go to show that

A1 took active party in Jaya Publications, Sasi Enterprises

and Namadhu MGR. PW.198 - Jayaraman was a Secretary

to the then Chief Minister A-1. He has deposed that

Mr.Vijayan @ Rama Vijayan used to deposit the money

given to them in the names of the companies mentioned

by A-2 in Canara Bank, Mylapore Branch and Indian Bank,

Abiramapuram Branch.

PW.201 - Vidya Sagar was the Manager of Canara

Bank at Mylapore. He speaks about all the accounts held

in their branch by A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 and other entities
floated by them. PW.209 - Manickavasagam was the

Branch Manager of Abhiramapuram Branch, Indian Bank.

He speaks about certified copies of Exhibits.

PW.226 - N.Thiagarajan was the Tahsildar at the

relevant point of time. He speaks about the application

dated 6.6.1994 given by Meadow Agro Farms Private

Limited for handing over of the land at Uthukottai village

to the said firm. He further states that in relation to the

land of 147.89 acres the value of the trees would be

Rs.31,25,963/- and the land would be Rs.22,18,350/-.

The report is marked as Ex.P2170 dated 22.9.1994.

PW.259 - Nallamma Naidu, Investigation Officer. He

states that he prepared the statements 1 to 7 and found

out that a sum of Rs.62,25,20,896/- are the assets

disproportionate to the known sources of income of A-1.

He further states that he gave the statement of A-1 and

wanted an explanation from her. He also further states

that on 30.4.1997, he applied for sanction to prosecute A-

1 to the Governor of Tamil Nadu. The final report was filed

on 4.6.1997. Ex.P2320 is the investigation report on the
basis of the complaint given by PW.232. He explained how

he had arrived at the final figure of Rs.66,30,30,000/-.

The above mentioned are the star witnesses of the

prosecution which prove beyond all reasonable doubt the

guilt of A-1 to A-4 in amassing assets disproportionate to

their known sources of income. Especially the witnesses

PWs.182, 201 and 209 who are the bank officials clearly

speak about how money was flowing from the account of

A-1 and A-2 and into the account of various companies.

The accused persons set-up various defences and

they can be broadly classified under the following

headings:

a) Marriage Expenses was not properly computed.

b) The construction costs were overly inflated and

should not be relied upon.

c) The companies have a separate existence from

that of the accused and their properties should

not be considered as that of the accused persons.

d) The amounts deposited into the account of

Namadhu MGR was that of the proceeds of the

Deposit Scheme.
e) The Income-tax returns of the accused should be

relied upon and accepted by the Criminal Court.

f) There is no material for conspiracy.

An attempt has been made by the accused persons

to show that they had huge income to purchase the

properties, by filing inflated income tax returns belatedly

and after the charge sheet was filed in the case. The

Income-tax returns of the Cheque period 1991 to 1996

was filed after 1997 when the charge sheet in this case

was filed. It is apparent on the face of it that the Tax

returns were filed as an afterthought to account for the

illegitimate assets acquired by the accused persons, hence

do not fall with the explanation under
Section 13(1)(e)
of

the P.C.Act. The third party Intervener submits that the

criminal liability of the accused will not be absolved even if

the Income-tax Appellate Authority accept the tax returns.

The Income Tax Department is only a revenue collecting

authority and not an Anti-Corruption Tribunal. The duty of

any revenue collecting authority is only to scrutinize the

returns and accept the tax. The Income Tax authorities do

not enquire into the lawful source of the amounts disclosed

and give finding regarding the commission of bribery;
whereas the accused are charged for criminal liability when

the lawful source of income is not disclosed as per
Section
of the P.C.Act. The Income Tax authorities merely

accepts the returns filed and collected tax irrespective of

the source of income. On perusal of the entire evidence on

behalf of the prosecution and the defence, it is evident that

there is no plausible explanation offered by the accused for

the properties acquired by them. The accused have rested

their defence solely on the balance sheet and the profit

and loss account statements said to have been filed before

the Income Tax authorities. But, the said documents are

not proved in accordance with law and they are not in

compliance with the statutory requirements. The auditors

examined by the accused are found to be cropped up to

support the false defence set up by the accused. The

auditors examined by the accused did not handle their

accounts during the check period and they were not

conversant with the true facts. The returns and the

balance sheet and the profit and loss account were

maneuvered solely with a view to offer an explanation to

the huge unexplained credits entered in their respective

bank accounts.
DW.1 nor the accused have named the persons who

remitted the money to this account. The entries contained

in Ex.D15 show that, the account was opened on

14.8.1995 by remitting cash of Rs.1,001/- and on

22.8.1995, a sum of Rs.3,40,000/-, Rs.7 Lakhs,

Rs.23,35,500/-, Rs.58,80,000/-, Rs.17,80,521/- is

remitted to this account and on 23.8.1995, Rs.28 Lakhs

has been remitted. Even with regard to the source of the

money remitted to this account, the version of DW.1 is

that, it is remitted by the family members. There is no

evidence as to who specifically remitted this money. It has

come in evidence that the bride's father has handed over

Rs.14 Lakhs to PW.200 towards the marriage expenses. If

bank account was opened to meet the marriage expenses

and all the arrangements were looked after by DW.1 as

contended by the accused, there is no explanation as to

why the father of the bride has to pay Rs.14 Lakhs to

PW.200.

The evidence of DW.1 and the other witnesses

examined by the accused in support of their contention

that the marriage expenses were met by the bride's family

is completely falsified by the declaration made by A-1 in
her returns filed before the Income Tax Authorities as per

Ex.P2176, wherein she has declared Rs.29,92,761/- as the

amount spent by her towards the marriage. Further, if the

marriage expenses were looked after by DW.1 and he was

maintaining the account, there is no explanation by the

accused as to how the original receipts and all other

connected documents in relation to the marriage expenses

were seized from the office of PW.228 under Ex.P2218.

On the other hand, several witnesses examined by the

accused have consistently deposed that on hearing the

marriage of A-3, they approached A-1 expressing their

intention to contribute their might. This evidence once

again indicates that the arrangements were made and

even the payments were made by A-1.

The prosecution has listed 19 new/additional

construction said to have been constructed by the accused

during the check period. The total value of these

constructions come to Rs.18,17,40,430/-.

The accused persons miserably failed in their duty to

prove the facts within their special knowledge. They

instead of letting in evidence to show that the valuation
and assessment of the buildings are higher, never gave

what is the value of the building as per their calculations.

They instead questioned the valuation of the prosecution

and sought that the entire valuation has to be discarded

from consideration. When the value of materials and the

cost of the construction is within the special knowledge of

the accused persons, it is their bounded duty to let in

evidence. When they failed to in their obligation to

discharge that burden the trial Court came to the

conclusion in valuing the buildings. The Engineers

examined by the prosecution are competent to estimate

the valuation of the structures. The accused themselves

have relied on the valuation report prepared by the PWD

Engineers, who were part of the team to controvert the

reports prepared by the prosecution witnesses. It is not

explained by the accused persons as to why the reports

prepared by DW78 and DW83 are preferable to the reports

prepared by the entire team which are proved in a Court of

Law. The actual cost incurred for the construction is within

the knowledge of the accused. It is the case of the accused

that contractors and architects were appointed in

connection with the construction.
The third Party Intervener submits that the modus of

the accused persons was to purchase defunct companies

from its original owner then launder money obtained by

corrupt means through these companies. For this purpose,

they floated about 34 companies and opened around 100

bank accounts in the names of these companies and

deposited cash into the company accounts. The documents

of the companies show that these companies did not do

any business except purchasing properties. At the relevant

time of acquisition of the properties during the cheque

period, the six companies through which most of the

properties are purchased are:

1) Riverway Agro Products

2) Meadow Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd.

3) Lex Property Development Pvt. Ltd.

4) Ramraj Agro Mills Pvt.Ltd.

5) Indo-Doha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.

6) Signora Enterprises

These companies were exclusively under the control

and management of A2 to A4. The registration address of

most of the companies is 36, Poes Garden, Chennai. The

promoters had already resigned in favour of A2 to A4.
Except Indo-Doha Pharmaceuticals Company Pvt. Ltd. all

other promoters and erstwhile Directors have categorically

stated before the Court that, on receipt of the amount

invested by them for the formation of companies, they

signed the necessary forms and went out of the company

and since then, they ceased of any right or interest in the

said property. The promoter Directors have categorically

stated before the Court that they did not purchase any

properties in their names either before or after the

formation of the company as long as they were on the

Board of Directors. A2 to A4 took over the management of

the company without even buying the requisite shares.

The illegally amassed wealth running to nearly 3000 acres

of land is sparked in these companies. The properties

registered in the name of the companies and even dispose

them of merely by passing a mere resolution. The

intention of the accused in buying over the above

companies and taking full control over the management

thereof and thereafter acquire large number of properties

in the name of the companies undoubtedly manifest the

criminal motive and intention of the accused attracting the
ingredients of offences under
Section 13(1) (e)
of the PC

Act read with
Section 120-B
of IPC.

The evidence of PW.182-Arunachalam, PW.203-

Vidyasagar and PW.209-Manickavasagam clearly would

prove that the bank accounts were opened by A2 and A3 in

the name of the companies only after they took over the

management and control of the companies and all the

transactions relating to the said companies are stated to

have taken place through these accounts. The most

important piece of link which connects all the accused and

proves conspiracy is the fact that the funds were

transferred or remitted to these above mentioned accounts

either from the bank account held in the name of Namadhu

MGR, Jaya Publications or other firms run by A1 and A2.

The funds for the acquisition of the properties had flown

from A1 either directly or through the accounts maintained

in the joint names of A1 and A2.

The evidence of the erstwhile owners of these

companies, would clearly reveal that no funds of the above

named companies were utilized for the acquisition of the

properties. It is an admitted fact that none of the
companies had filed returns either before the Registrar of

Companies or before the Income Tax Authorities declaring

the funds for the purchase of the properties or the

acquisitions alleged to have been made in the name of the

companies. The money flow chart would clearly reveal that

the funds from the purchase of these properties are proved

to have been flown from the sources provided by A1 and

all throughout the properties were treated as private

properties of A3 and A4. A3 and A4 obtained loan for

effecting improvements in these properties and there is

nothing on record to show that the loan liability has been

taken over by the above companies. It is proved beyond

all reasonable doubt that these companies purchased

properties only out of the funds funneled through

Namadhu MGR account in which unexplained cash was

deposited. The above companies were never represented

by either the Secretary or Director and in any of the

registered deeds. Even the addresses of the companies

were never written in the body of the deed. The Registrar

who registered these properties PW181 who negotiated for

the purchase of the properties bent the rules only to help

A1. The circumstances brought out in their evidence clearly
indicate that they went out of the way to register these

properties as instructed by A1 solely to oblige A1. The

corporate veil of these companies, have to be pierced since

they were used as front for parking illegal funds.

The deposits of huge cash clearly reveal the

conspiracy of A1, A2, A3 and A4 to amass wealth through

illegal means. The 3rd party Intervenor submits that the

properties purchased by the accused persons, the money

was paid by way of cash or from the accounts held by the

accused persons. He further submits that the ill-gotten

money which was deposited by cash into the accounts of

the accused persons and the companies floated by them

was indeed used by them to purchase the properties and

acquire other assets.

Namadhu MGR deposit scheme is a bogus plea. The

defence set up by the accused that Namadhu MGR

newspaper floated a deposit scheme and the monies

deposited there were the monies of the depositors was a

false plea. The auditors examined by the accused did not

handle their accounts during the check period and they

were not conversant with the true facts. The returns and
the balance sheet and the profit and loss account were

maneuvered solely with a view to offer an explanation to

the huge unexplained credits entered in their respective

banks accounts. The prosecution has proved that there

was no real source of income with the other accused and

the public servant is expected to show the real and lawful

source. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to

show that, during the check period, either the accused or

the firms run by them credited any amounts to the various

accounts maintained by them. The story of the scheme

deposit canvassed by the accused has taken birth only

after filing of the charge sheet. There is not even a stray

evidence to suggest that the said deposit scheme was in

circulation any time before the registration of the criminal

case against the accused. There is nothing in the entire

evidence indicating that the accused had declared the said

deposit before the Income Tax authorities any time during

the check period. As already narrated above, the

existence of the said scheme was brought to light only in

the year 1998 in the returns filed on behalf of the said

firms. It is only after filing of the charge sheet, the

accused appear to have master minded the above defence
with the active connivance of DW88, who claims to be the

Chartered Accountant of the accused with a view to create

evidence in a bid to offer an explanation for the huge

amount of unaccounted money found with A1.

The accused have not produced any material before

the Court to show that Dr. Namadhu MGR had floated the

deposit scheme inviting subscription from the General

Public. M/s. S. Jaya Publication was an assessee of Income

Tax with Central Circle-II, Chennai from the year 1991.

The trial Court by convincing reasoning based on the

evidence and analysis of the documents gives a categorical

finding that Namadhu MGR deposit scheme is a bogus

scheme and an afterthought. The defence harped upon the

fact that the transactions are all benami transactions and

as per the abolition of
Benami Transactions Act
, no

prosecution could be launched against the accused

persons. The defence witnesses examined in this case

have not adduced any valuable evidence to discard the

prosecution nor their evidence satisfactorily account for the

possession of huge assets disproportionate to the known

income of A1. The calculation adduced by the defence

witnesses do not tally with the income shown by the
prosecution for accused Nos.1 to 4 and their respective

firms.

The evidence of defence witnesses for giving money

to the firms are not supported by any documentary legal

evidence and cannot be accepted as a lawful source of

income. Hence, he prays for confirming the sentence and

fine imposed by the trial Court to convict the accused

Nos.1 to 4.

The brief reply filed on behalf of the appellant

to the written arguments filed by Dr. Subramanian

Swamy is as under:

Allegations against the appellant are borne out in a

desperate attempt to tarnish the name of A-1 without any

supporting material. The provision of law mentioned is

wrong. Factual mistakes have been deliberately made

with a view to gain cheap publicity. This shows that if

third party opponents who are nurturing a personal

animosity against A-1 are permitted this solemn Court

proceedings would degenerate into legalized means of

wrecking personal vengeance. Namadu MGR is not a Firm.

It is a Newspaper run by Jaya Publications. The averments
made in paragraph-7 that A-1 as a member of Legislative

Assembly acquired and possessed pecuniary resources

which are not commensurate with her known sources of

income is wrong. In fact, deliberately, a false case has

been lodged against the accused by the then DMK

Government. The case was investigated and found to be

false. The case was closed and closure report was

accepted by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, as per

Ex.D.374. The averments made in paragraph-9 of the

written arguments mentioning that the appellant and A-2

have floated several Firms and listed 32 entities. This is

factually wrong. It is not even the case of the prosecution

that A-1 has floated these Firms or that A-1 was ever a

Partner of these Firms. The assessment of the appellant

either under the
Income Tax Act
or
Wealth Tax Act
were

always scrutiny assessments which were duly completed

and return of income as filed by the appellant has been

accepted. This is the position for all the five years of check

period. The allegation in paragprah-10 that there has been

a huge deposit of money in the account of the Firms and

the appellant cannot be justified, it only demonstrate lack

of deep study of the documents filed and the explanation
offered by the appellant. Appellant, Jaya Publication, Sasi

Enterprises have been assessed under the
Income Tax Act
.

Assessment Orders and the orders of CIT (Appeals),

covering the entire five years of the check period have

been produced and marked in evidence on behalf of the

appellant. A perusal of those orders will belie the version

of the complainant. That in none of the years during check

period, the appellant or Jaya Publications or Sasi

Enterprises have ever been made to pay tax on any

unexplained income or unexplained expenditure. The

allegations made in paragraph-10 are incorrect. The

allegation that there was conspiracy between the appellant

and A-2 to A-4 are made without any justification. Original

complainant is not acquainted with the facts of the case.

It is revealed from the figure shown by the complainant in

paragraph-13 that the value of the alleged

disproportionate assets is Rs.66,44,73,573/- whereas

according to Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption

Department, the value of alleged disproportionate assets is

Rs.66,56,20,395/-. In paragraph-19(ii), the complainant

has stated that the appellant has declared Rs.60 Crores

and has wondered how the appellant could have got it.
This is a deliberate false statement. These are made with

an eye for sensationalism. Her agricultural income during

check period has been accepted upto the Tribunal level. It

is a lie and defamation to allege that the appellant had

taken loan from Rs.4 Lakhs from Ramaswamy Udayar from

a Liquor Barron and that too with instruction of

Sri M.G.Ramachandran to build a Farm House at

Hyderabad. There is no such incident. The complainant

has asserted many things in a desperate attempt to

somehow implicate A-1. These averments show that the

complainant is trying to clutch at a straw.

The defence witnesses have given oral evidence

supported by documentary evidence. Their evidence is

fortified by the decisions of IT authorities upheld up to the

Tribunal level in favour of the appellant.

The averments made in paragraphs-24 and 25

appear to indicate poor understanding of factual aspects.

The compounding was in respect of non-filing of returns for

the assessment year 1993-94. The compounding was

accepted on 26.11.2014, whereas the appeal was filed in

September 2014. Hence, the averments relating to
compounding order of Income Tax authorities were made

in appeal is a lie. The compounding was with respect to

filing of returns in the year 1993-94 and on account of

criminal prosecution having been lodged against the

appellant. In view of the compounding, the prosecution

laid against the appellant by the Income Tax department

for non-filing of return was withdrawn and the same was

dismissed in favour of the appellant. It is

incomprehensible as to how this has any relevance to the

issue involved in the present case.

The averments made in paragraph-25 that the

appellant has stated in memorandum of appeal that I.T.

authorities as "true and genuine" and it is on account of

the compounding. The same is wrong. The facts stated

above make it clear that the income and expenditure were

independently determined and it is not on account of

compounding under
Income Tax Act
. The appellant has

not in any manner relied upon the acceptance of the

compounding application. Hence the allegation of

complainant in this regard is a factual misstatement. The

written arguments filed by the complainant is riddled with
factual misstatements made deliberately. It does not add

anything to aid this Court in deciding this appeal.

In the case of ANBAZHAGAN V/S. STATE OF

KARNATAKA in Crl.A.No.637/2015, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India has observed at paragraph No.36

as under:

"36. We have referred to the aforesaid
two authorities only to highlight the gravity of
the offence. We are absolutely sure that the
learned Single Judge, as the appellate Judge,
shall keep in mind the real functioning of an
appellate court. The appellate court has a duty
to make a complete and comprehensive
appreciation of all vital features of the case.
The evidence brought on record in entirety has
to be scrutinized with care and caution. It is
the duty of the Judge to see that justice is
appropriately administered, for that is the
paramount consideration of a Judge. The said
responsibility cannot be abdicated or
abandoned or ostracized, even remotely, solely
because there might not have been proper
assistance by the counsel appearing for the
parties. The appellate court is required to
weigh the materials, ascribe concrete reasons
and the filament of reasoning must logically
flow from the requisite analysis of the material
on record. The approach cannot be cryptic. It
cannot be perverse. The duty of the Judge is
to consider the evidence objectively and
dispassionately. The reasonings in appeal are
to be well deliberated. They are to be
resolutely expressed. An objective judgment
of the evidence reflects the greatness of mind

- sans passion and sans prejudice. The
reflective attitude of the Judge must be
demonstrable from the judgment itself. A
judge must avoid all kind of weakness and
vacillation. That is the sole test. That is the
litmus test. This being the position of a Judge,
which is more elevated as the appellate Judge,
we are of the considered opinion that there is
no justification for rehearing of the appeal as
the matter has been heard at length and
reserved for verdict. The appellant has
submitted his written note of submissions
before the trial court and, therefore, we are
inclined to permit him to file a written note of
submissions within 90 pages before the
learned Single Judge/Appellate Judge. The
State of Karnataka, which is the prosecuting
agency, is granted permission to file written
note of submissions within 50 pages. The
written submissions be filed latest by
28.4.2015. The written note of submissions
filed before the trial court and the High Court
along with written note of submissions of State
of Karnataka shall be considered by the
learned Single Judge and the consideration
should be manifest in the judgment. Written
note of submissions, if any, by the 4th
respondent shall not be considered by the
learned Judge. A copy of our judgment be
sent by the Registry of this Court in course of
the day to the Registrar General of the High
Court of Karnataka so that he can place the
judgment before the learned Single Judge for
perusal and guidance."

There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of

law laid-down in the above mentioned decisions.

10. After hearing the learned counsel for the

appellants, learned counsel for the respondents and

also after considering the written submissions of

Sri.B.V.Acharya, Special Public Prosecutor,

Dr.Subramanian Swamy, K.Anbazhagan, the

following points arise for my consideration:

[1] Whether the appellants - Accused Nos. 1 to 4 are
guilty of offence with which they were charged and
convicted?

[2] Whether the Accused Nos. 2 to 4 were parties to
criminal conspiracy with the object of possessing
assets and resources of income in the name of
Accused No.1 and in the name of Accused Nos. 2 to
4 and 32 business enterprises floated in the names

of Accused Nos. 2 to 4 and also Accused Nos. 2 to 4

abetted with Accused No.1 for acquiring the
properties?

[3] Whether the confiscation of immovable properties
and auctioning the gold and diamond ornaments to
make deficit of fine amount good and remaining gold
and diamond jewellery to be confiscated to the
Government is sustainable in law or not?

11. My answers to the above points are as

under for the following reasons:

Litigation made by persons who advance the political

gain and to settle the scores under the guise to fight a

legal battle should not be entertained. Liberty of the

accused cannot be taken away except in accordance with

established procedure of law, under the Constitution,

criminal procedure and other cognate statutes. Fair

investigation requires that accused should not be kept in

darkness. Investigating officer must give an opportunity

to the accused, call upon him to account for the excess of

the accounts over the known sources of income. The

choice of check period must be necessarily be determined

by the allegations of facts on which the prosecution if
founded and rests. The period must be such as to yield

true and comprehensive source of income and the

pecuniary resources and property in question of the public

servant, either by himself or through any other person on

his behalf which are alleged to be not disproportionate. It

is for the prosecution to choose the period, having regard

to the acquisitive activities of the public servant in

amassing wealth, characterize and isolate that period for a

special scrutiny.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued Memo

No.700/SC D/88-4 dated 13.2.1989 for the benefit of the

Government servant giving certain guidelines to the Anti

Corruption Bureau is entitled to give allowance of a

reasonable margin of 20% on the total income of a

Government servant while computing disproportionate

assets. On the basis of this memorandum of the State

Government the High Court of Andhra Pradesh rendered in

S.Thiremolaiah v. State of A.P. Inspector of Police II

A.C.B., Karnool Range, Karnool
, in which the learned Judge

has given the benefit of this Government Memo to the

appellant therein though the appellant
in that case
was
prosecuted in the year 1983, that is 6 years before the

issue of this Memo as in the case on hand.

In Agnihotri's case, the Apex Court held since the

excess asset was comparatively small, being less than

10% of the total income of Rs.1,27,715.43/-, it would not

be right to hold that the asset found in the possession of

the accused were disproportionate to his known source of

income so as to justify the raising of presumption under

Section 5(3)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Proof of

unexplained possession of resources or property

disproportionate to known source of income, a

presumption of misconduct was made against the accused.

The reasons being that if the percentage begins to raise in

each case, it gets extended till it reaches the level of

incredulity to give benefit of doubt. Proof of unexplained

possession of resources or property disproportionate to

known source, a presumption of misconduct was made

against the accused. Sub-
Section 5
based on a rule of

evidence enabling a Court to raise a presumption of guilt in

circumstances a rule which is a complete departure from

the established principles of criminal jurisprudence that the

burden always lies on the prosecution to prove all the
ingredients of the offence charged and that the burden

never shifts on the accused to disprove the charges framed

against him (G.V.NAIR V/S. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA -

1963(1)Crl.L.J. 675 Kerala). It is clear therefore where

a person is charged with criminal misconduct and it is seen

that he is in possession of property or income which could

not have been amassed or earned by the official

remuneration which he has obtained, then the Court is

entitled to come to the conclusion that the amassing of

such wealth was due to bribery or corruption.

Charge ought to disclose under which of the different

clauses of Sub-Section (1) the offence of criminal

misconduct has been committed.

The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act and

Prevention of Corruption Act
operate in different fields. The

source of income of a particular individual will depend upon

his position in life with reference to particular occupation

or avocation in view. Known source of income means

known source of income to the prosecution after a

thorough investigation and the onus of satisfactorily

accounting for it is not as heavy. An onus is on the
prosecution to prove its case beyond all possibility of

doubt. (HEMANTA KUMAR MOHANTY V/S. STATE OF

ORISSA, 1973(1) SLR 1121).

Income is the receipt in the hand of the recipient. It

is because of one's labour or expertise or property or

investment. Windfall, gains of grafts, crime or immoral

accretion will not come under the purview of known source

of income.

The prosecution cannot be absolved of its liability on

the ground that it was not aware of the said income on the

facts and circumstances of the case. The Government

servant is to satisfactorily account for the disproportionate

assets and not to prove his claim with mathematical

exactitude (accuracy) beyond all possibility of doubt. One

in many might be keeping accounts of expenditure for his

satisfaction, but why should he procure and preserve

supporting bills and vouchers? These are not government

cash to be audited. Besides why should one keep them

from the beginning of his career till his superannuation

anticipating, to be required in a Court of Law? Even for

certain expenditure supporting vouchers are not feasible
for which audit accepts a flat rate. (HEMANTA KUMAR

MOHANTY V/S. STATE OF ORISSA, 1973(1) SLR

1121).

Fanciful claims, unreasonable apprehensions, vague

possibilities cannot be hiding ground for accused persons.

He is bound to answer where there is no clear tendency to

criminate. (NANDINI SATPATHY V/S. P.L.DANI - AIR

1978 SC 1025)

The provision contained in
Section 5(1)(e)
is a self-

contained provision. First part of the Section cast a

burden on the prosecution and the second on the accused.

The accused is not bound to prove his innocence beyond

all reasonable doubt. All that he needs to do is to bring

out a preponderance of probability. (1981 Crl.L.J. 884)

The accused lead overwhelming evidence and

documents to show the affluence and substantial means of

his father-in-law to create a doubt as to his possession

over such property. The accused would be entitled to

acquittal (Vasudevo Ramachandra Kaidalawar - 1981

CRl.L.J. 884).
A Police Officer with whom an investigation of an

offence under
Section 5(1)(e)
of the Act is entrusted

should not proceed with a pre-conceived idea of guilt of

that person indicted with such offence and subject him to

any harassment and victimisation, because in case the

allegations of illegal accumulation of wealth are found

during the course of investigation as baseless, the harm

done not only to that person but also to the office he held

will be incalculable and inestimable (STATE OF HARYANA

V/S. BHAJAN LAL - AIR 1992 SC 604).

The huge expenditure in marriages of daughters is

not explained and that there is no proper explanation

given for the property in the name of his wife. (Bharath

Chandra Roun - 1995 Crl.L.J. 2417 Orissa).

The investigating officer does not disclose any

serious effort for ascertaining approximate if not true

income from the Agriculture. The agricultural income

shown in an income tax return cannot be considered as a

basis for ascertaining income from agricultural lands.

In the absence of any evidence as to the date or the

period of acquisition of such assets (gold), the question is
what would be the date or period, which could be ascribed

for the acquisition of those assets. It is a complex

question, which is not easy to answer. But at any time the

assumption that they were acquired on the date of check

period does not appear justified.

In a case of disproportionate assets, a person

employed in Textile Corporation of India was convicted. In

appeal, the High Court observed that loan taken by the

accused was not added to income and that statement of

account prepared by the concerned authority did not

contain all income particulars including the amounts drawn

from the firm of his wife and held that the accused is

entitled to benefit of doubt. (RAMESH CHANDER ABBI

V/S. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, (2006(3) AIR BOM R

577). From this it is clear that, loan has to be added as

an income in the Statement of Account of the accused.

(emphasis supplied)

It is well settled that the burden of showing that a

particular transaction is benami and the owner is not the

real owner always rests on the person asserting it to be so

and this 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. The essence of benami is the

intention of the parties and not unoften, such intention is

shrouded in a thick veil, which cannot be easily pierced

through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person

asserting the transaction to be benami of the serious onus

that rests on him nor justify the acceptance of mere

conjectures or surmises as a substitute for proof. This

evidence, the learned Judge has rejected on imaginary and

flimsy ground.

It was for the prosecution to prove beyond

reasonable doubt and by means of legal evidence that

these were Benami properties of accused No.1. Accused

No.4 had no personal source of income. Accused No.4 was

the nephew of the Appellant and, therefore, out of love

and affection he had gifted the properties to Accused Nos.2

and 3. It was for the prosecution to establish by legal and

cogent evidence that the gifts were not genuine and that

they were not the properties of Accused Nos.2 and 3.
Taking in view of the testimony of all the witnesses,

the burden of proving that the gold ornaments belongs to

the appellant and not to Satpal Kaur was on the

prosecution and no material was brought on record by the

prosecution to discharge this burden.

SURYA SANKARAM KARRI V/S. STATE

INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SPE/CBI/VISAKAPATNAM -

2004 (1) ALT (Crl) 357 (AP).

BHIM SINGH V/S. THAKUR KAN SINGH, AIR

1980 SC 727.

i) The burden of showing that a transfer is a

benami transaction lies on the person who

asserts that it is such a transaction.

ii) If it is proved that the purchase money came

from a person other than the person in whose

favour the property is transferred, the

purchase is prima facie assumed to be for the

benefit of the person who supplied the

purchase money unless there is evidence to

the contrary.
iii) The true character of the transaction is

governed by the intention of the person who

has contributed the purchase money.

iv) The question as to what his intention was has

to be decided on the basis of surrounding

circumstances, the relationship of the parties,

the motives governing their action in bringing

about the transaction and their subsequent

conduct, etc.

Merely because the ostensible owner of assets, do

not have any known sources of income it cannot be taken

as a conclusive circumstance to hold that those assets

were held for the benefit of the accused. K.GOVARDHAN

V/S. STATE 2001(1) ALT (CRL) 468 (AP).

The legislature has not chosen to indicate what

proportion of the income would be considered

disproportionate and the court may take a liberal view of

the excess of the assets over the receipts of known

sources of income. (Hemant Kumar Mohanty v/s. State of

Orissa - 1973 (1) SLR 1121)
The assets which were valued in the earlier

investigation proceeding at a particular value, cannot be

valued higher in the present proceeding unless any

positive ground is there for such valuation.

K.GOVARDHAN V/S. STATE 2001(1) ALT (Crl) 468

(AP).

SURYA SANKARAM KARRI V/S. STATE INSPECTOR

OF POLICE, SPE/CBI/Visakapatnam - 2004 (1) ALT

(Crl) 357 (AP).

Language of Section 106 and particularly the word

'especially' used therein connotes that the facts must be in

their nature be such as could be within the knowledge of

the Accused and possibly no one else. Section 106 cannot

come into play where the facts concerned are such as

capable of being known by others. If it were possible by

due diligence and proper investigation to find out the facts

even though it may be very difficult to do so, it cannot

relieve the prosecution from obligation of establishing the

ingredients of the offence alleged. This section cannot be

used to shift the onus of establishing an essential

ingredient of the offence on Accused. General burden of
proof of guilt which lies on the prosecution or on authority

in the position of prosecution never shifts - Prosecution

cannot rely on section 106 except in very exceptional

cases and to a very limited extent. Section 106 cannot be

pressed into service to relieve the prosecution of its

burden of proving the criminal charge though the burden

of proving a plea specifically set up by an Accused, which

may absolve him from criminal liability, certainly lies upon

him, but the quantum of evidence by which he may

succeed in discharging his burden of creating a reasonable

belief, that circumstance absolving him from criminal

liability may have existed, is lower than the burden resting

upon the prosecution to establish guilt of the Accused

beyond reasonable doubt. Standard of such proof is not

akin to that of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the

Accused. It is trite law that such burden can be discharged

by the Accused showing a preponderance of probabilities.

Prosecution must establish all elements of the offence.

Positive facts must be proved by prosecution. Section 106

cannot be invoked to make good the lacuna in proving

essential facts and more emphatically for establishing the

facts necessary to give jurisdiction to the court.
Ordinarily, there is very little scope for the application of

section 106
, Indian Evidence Act, to criminal cases where

onus of proof is always on the prosecution and the section

cannot be invoked to shift the onus on the Accused. The

prosecution has to establish prima facie case in the first

instance, it is not enough to establish the facts which give

rise to suspicion and then by reason of section 106 to

throw the onus on the Accused to prove his innocence. The

absence of explanation or false explanation is no doubt a

circumstance that is sometimes relied upon to bring home

the guilt to the Accused in a case depending on the

circumstantial evidence, on the ground that the facts

proving his innocence must be within his special knowledge

and that the burden of at least offering a reasonable

explanation is on him on the principle of
section 106
,

Evidence Act. But this would be so only in cases where

other circumstances proved are so sufficiently strong

against him as to point to him as very probably the culprit

and therefore, calling for his explanation. If such a

situation the Accused gives an explanation which may be

reasonably true in the proved circumstances, the Accused

gets the benefit of doubt though he may not prove the
truth of the explanation. But, to infer the guilt of the

Accused from the absence of reasonable explanation [or a

false explanation] where other circumstances are not by

themselves enough to call for his explanation, would be to

relieve the prosecution of its burden. Section 106 does not

cast any burden on the Accused person to prove that no

crime was committed by proving the facts specially lying

within his knowledge. The section does not warrant a

direction that, if anything is unexplained which the Jury

think the Accused could explain, they not only may, but

must find him guilty. If the knowledge of certain facts is

as much available to the prosecution on exercise of due

diligence as to the Accused, the facts cannot be said to be

within the knowledge of the Accused. Section 106 is

intended to meet certain exceptional cases in which it

would be impossible or extremely difficult for the

prosecution to prove the facts which is especially within

the knowledge of the Accused and knowledge of that fact

is not available to the prosecution. However, section 106

cannot be utilized to cast the burden on the Accused to

prove his innocence to relieve the prosecution of its burden

of proof. It is only in cases where the facts proved by the
evidence give rise to a reasonable inference of guilt unless

the same is rebutted such inference can be negatived by

proof of some facts which in its nature can only be within

the special knowledge of the Accused. Section 106 is

designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it

would be impossible or at any rate proportionately difficult

for the prosecution to establish the facts which are

especially within the knowledge of the Accused and which

he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. Where

the prosecution fail to discharge the burden that the

offence was committed by the Accused and it sought to

rely on the fact that the Accused gave false information to

witnesses regarding cause of death, held the false

information given by the Accused would have effect of

being simply taken in aid or to lend assurance to the

prosecution story and could never form basis for drawing

an inference that Accused and Accused alone were guilty of

the offence. [1992 Crl. LJ 1339].

Where the Accused, a public servant, is found to be

in possession of disproportionate assets, the burden is on

him to satisfactorily account for his possession of such

assets. However, the Accused is not bound to prove his
innocence beyond all reasonable doubt. All that he needs

to do so, is to bring out a preponderance of probabilities

[AIR 1981 SC 1186 = 1981 [3] SCC 199].

Juristic persons are not exception - it is within

special knowledge of the Corporation which of its officer

acted in fraudulent manner.

Though in corruption cases, the burden of accounting

for the assets disproportionate to his income does shift to

the Accused and he is required to lead evidence and

produce material to satisfy the court, but even in such

cases the presumption of innocence does not disappear

nor does the basic principle of criminal law that if a

plausible explanation is put forward by the Accused which

fits in within the facts and circumstances of the case that

the court is duty bound to accept the explanation. [1993

Crl. LJ 2051 [BOM]]

The degree and character of proof which the Accused

is required to adduce for rebutting the presumption under

section 4
[1] of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
,

cannot be equated with the burden resting on the

prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, a
near plausibility of his explanation under
section 342
of the

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 may not be enough but the

presumption may be discharged if the material on record

renders the fact presumed to be improbable, the Accused

may do so by mere preponderance of probability in his

favour and not by evidence beyond reasonable doubt

besides if the story set up by the prosecution is

inconsistent with the fact presumed. The presumption

would be rendered sterile ab initio if not rejected out of

judicial courtesy as still born. [AIR 1977 SC 666 = 1975

[4] SCC 761].

The burden to prove requisite to raise a presumption

under
section 5
[3] of the
Prevention of Corruption Act,
, lies on the prosecution that he money standing in

the name of his wife in a bank is a benami asset of the

Accused. [AIR 1977 SC 796].

Once a requisite proof to convict a public servant for

having committed criminal misconduct under
section 5
[2]

read with
section 5
[1][e] of
Prevention of Corruption Act

has to be placed on record, held, the burden to account for

disproportionate assets possessed by him shifts on to the
Accused. However, he need not prove it beyond

reasonable doubt. He has only to establish his defence by

preponderance of probabilities. [AIR 1981 SC 1186].

There has been a legal evidence for hearing a

finding of fact. At least the witness must say that he has

personal knowledge about the facts about which he is

giving evidence. If the witness has no personal knowledge

or any means of such knowledge about the facts deposed

by him, his testimony would not be evidence under any

principle of law. [1969 [71] PUNJAB LAW REPORTS

68].

The evidence of the contents contained in the

document is hearsay evidence unless the writer thereof is

examined before the court. An attempt to prove the

contents of the documents by providing the signature or

the handwriting of the author thereof is set at naught is a

well recognized rule that hearsay evidence cannot be

admitted. [AIR 1957 SC 857].

Even if the entire documents is held formally proved

that does not amount to proof of contents of the

document. The only person competent to give evidence on
the truthfulness of the document is the writer thereon.

[AIR 1968 BOM 112].

It is only when a witness states that the content of a

document written in his presence by a person, then it can

be said that the said witness has proved writing of that

person. [1982 CRL. LAW REPORTS 39

MAHARASHTRA].

Balance sheets relating to accounts do not prove

themselves and the facts mentioned therein has to be

proved by evidence given on affidavit or otherwise and

after giving an opportunity to the opposite party to contest

the correctness of such evidence by cross examination.

[ILR 1963 [2] PUNJAB 28].

Disproportionate means out of proportion, lack of

proportion or equality relatingly too large or small; lack of

balance or equality; failure to be in proportion

unreasonably large or small in comparison with something

else;

Illegal : According to
Section 43
of the Indian Penal

Code, the word "illegal" is applicable to everything which
is an offence or which is prohibited by law, or which

furnishes ground for a civil action; and a person is said to

be "legally bound to do" whatever it is illegal in him to

omit.

Agreement: According to
Section 120(B)
of the

Indian Penal Code, an agreement is an advanced step

from mere intention. It has to be judged from the

circumstances of each individual case.

It is a matter of inference from the conduct of the

accused.

The possession of pecuniary resources or property

disproportionate to his known source of income is included

in Clause 1(e) of
Section 13
of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

Pecuniary means monetary, financial.

New Dictionary of Civil Engineering, Penguin

Reference:

Construction Cost: The direct contractor costs of labour,

material, equipment and services, contractor's overhead

and profit. Construction cost may not include the fees paid

to the architect and engineer and other consultants, the

cost of the land, rights of way, financing cost or other
costs which are defined in the contract documents as being

the responsibility of the owner or client.

Soft Costs: These are cost items added to the direct

construction cost - they include architectural and

engineering fees, legal permits and fees, financing fees,

construction interest and operating expenses, leasing and

real estate commissions, advertising and promotion, and

supervision costs.

Square Feet includes rate of Earth work, masoning

labour work, plinth, concrete, RCC Sajjas, Hattas, wood

works, plastering, flooring, cooking platform, water supply,

sanitary, electrical work, painting and distemper work,

painting for all wood work, cost of plinth area. Extra work

will have to be borne by the owner i.e. electricity deposits,

sanitary, water connection deposits etc. Extra work

normally involves earth work, parking staircase, grill work.

Cladding of tiles normally contractor will charge the

rates for tiles. Difference has to be borne by the owner in

case laying of marbles and granites and also labour costs.

No prudent man will pay the cost of PWD rates for

construction. PWD rates include delay in payment,

miscellaneous expenditure of the contractor and also
interest on the borrowed amount if any by the contractor.

Therefore, PWD rate will normally higher than the rate that

will be done by the contractor. In the instant case,

valuation is done as per PWD rates.

160th Year of Publication - Wharton's Law Lexicon

(Fifteenth Edition) (Page No.971):

- Lawful: The natural meaning in a statute of the words 'it

shall be lawful' is permissive only, but if the words are

used to effectuate a legal right, they are compulsory;

- Lawful, Legal

- What is legal is lawful. But what is lawful may be so

without being formally legal.

- former contemplates the substance of law.

- which is not stricto legalo may yet be lawful. It should

not be forbidden by law. In fact legal is associated with

provisions in the Act, rules etc, whereas lawful visualizes

all that is not illegal against law or even permissible.

Lawful is wider in connotation than legal.

Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition) by Bryan A.
Garner (Page Nos.885 and 902):

Lawful: Legal; warranted or authorized by the law; having

the qualifications prescribed by law; not contrary to nor

forbidden by the law; not illegal.
Lawful: Not contrary to law; permitted by law <the police

officer conducted a lawful search of the premises>

Oxford Dictionary:

Lawful: According or not contrary to law, permitted by

law.

O.Hood Phillips' Constitution and Administrative Law

(Sixth Edition) by O.Hood Phillips Paul Jackson -

Sweet & Maxwell (Page No.238):

Corruption by members. The Prevention of Corruption

Acts 1889-1916 does not apply to members of Parliament

in their capacity as such. Although any action of a

member that is not a proceeding in Parliament is subject to

the ordinary law, it is doubtful whether a back-bench M.P.

(as opposed to a Minister of the Crown) can be guilty of an

offence under these Acts as he has no "employer or

superior officer"; but there may be common law offences

in the giving and taking of financial inducements by

persons exercising public functions or occupying positions

of trust. The Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct

in Public Life recommended that Parliament should

consider bringing corruption, bribery and attempted
bribery of a member acting in his parliamentary capacity

within the ambit of the criminal law.

"Interpretation of Known Sources of Income in

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988" - by Ashok

Dhamija - Appendix 18 - Articles relating to

Corruption (Page No.1977)

Account for Political Corruption - by Ashok Dhamija:

Corruptionby politicians holding high posts such as

ministers, MPs, MLAs is a common knowledge, figuring in

media and other fora on regular basis. Several cases

relating to corruption or possession of disproportionate

assets have been registered recently against politicians

holding high posts. Who has not heard of Hawala and

Bofors today? Even a former Prime Minister is involved in

a case of corruption of offering bribes to some MPs. Cases

of disproportionate assets have been registered against

former Chief Ministers of Tamil Nadu, Sikkim, Himachal

Pradesh, Bihar etc. The list is unending. And yet, there

definitely are innumerable other cases of corruption by

politicians which could never see the light of the day.

MPs and MLAs have now been confirmed to be public

servants in the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in
the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha case, implying that they are

amenable to the offences defined in the
Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988
.

One major offence defined in this Act relates to the

possession of assets by a public servant which are

disproportionate to his known sources of income. This

generally results from the acceptance of bribes over a long

period of time as such bribes ultimately get reflected in his

assets in one way or the other. With the sources of

income remaining constant, such extra assets amount to

disproportionate assets vis-à-vis his known sources of

income. For a source of income of a public servant to

qualify as a known source of income, the Act requires

following two conditions to be satisfied:

• The income is received from any lawful source;

• Such receipt of income has been intimated in

accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or

order which are applicable to the public servant.

Thus, any income received from any unlawful source,

e.g., bribery, smuggling cannot be considered. Secondly,

if the provisions of any law, rules or order require the
intimation of receipt of any income by a public servant to

any authority, then it should have been properly intimated.

For example, the receipt of an income may be required to

be intimated in the Income Tax Return. If such intimation

is not given, then such income cannot be considered. An

income which thus does not fulfill either of these conditions

cannot be considered for the purposes of deciding the

offence of disproportionate assets.

The importance of this provision lies in the fact that

for most public servants, in addition to the requirements

under laws such as
Income Tax Act
, there are various rules

requiring intimations about their financial transactions to

be given to authorities from time to time. For example,

the All India Services (Conduct) Rules require the IAS and

IPS officers to file a return at the time of their first

appointment about all their assets and liabilities.

Subsequently, they are required to submit a return every

year showing details of their immovable properties. They

are also required to give advance intimation about every

transaction in respect of an immovable property. Even

transactions in movable properties beyond a specific value,

information about loans taken, or any family member
joining any private trade, business or profession have to

be intimated. This list is only illustrative. These

requirements are more strict when the transaction or

dealing in question is with a person who has any official

dealings with such officer. Similar rules normally exist for

other public servants.

All monetary transactions of a public servant are

thus kept under watch since his appointment. A major

advantage of such rules is that if a public servant has

acquired any assets in a surreptitious manner without

intimating to his superiors even though required under the

rules, then any income generated from such property will

not be considered in his favour in view of the aforesaid

definition of the known sources of income requiring

intimation thereof. It thus helps immensely in successfully

making out a case of disproportionate assets. The

requirement of timely intimations about the financial

transactions debars a public servant from claiming any

new or undisclosed source of income at a subsequent

stage of investigation or trial of a case of disproportionate

assets.
It is ironical that no such rules exist for ministers,

MPs, MLAs or other elected representatives who are public

servants now, when almost all other categories of public

servants are subject to such rules. There have been some

voluntary efforts by some politicians in this direction, e.g.,

the present Prime Minister asking all ministers and Member

of Parliament of his party to file statements of assets

owned by them and their spouses. However, such efforts

are not sufficient for the simple reason that they are

voluntary, individual, unorganized and scattered and are

not binding. There is no legal sanction behind them and

no penalty or disadvantage in the case of default. No

machinery exists to ensure compliance with them. More

often than not, such efforts remain only on paper and are

basically meant for the public consumption in the nature of

a public relations or image-boosting exercise. They are

more in the form of noble declarations made at the solemn

occasion of a party coming into power and to be

conveniently forgotten subsequently.

It is not a mockery that politicians, who never tire of

making laws and rules for others, are not governed by any

such rules in the important matter of corruption. They
continue to occupy high public offices where scope for

corruption is definitely higher than any other category of

public servants, without being governed by any such rules,

while almost all other public servants are governed by

such rules framed by the same very politicians in the same

very matter.

In view of the impending elections to the Parliament

and several State Legislative Assemblies when several

politicians will be becoming public servants as MPs, MLAs

or ministers, it is high time that detailed rules are framed

with sufficient legal sanction, either in the form of some

enactment or some rules under the authority of a valid law

such as
Representation of People Act
, to ensure that all

ministers, MPs, MLAs, other elected representatives and

other private persons holding posts under statutory bodies,

public sector undertakings and the like must comply with

the following requirements:

• File a statement of all properties, assets,

liabilities and sources of income in their own

names and in the names of their family

members at the time of their appointment or

election to such posts;
• File regular annual returns during the period of

office in respect of any changes during the

year in respect of the aforesaid items;

• Report about big financial transactions (say

above Rs.1,00,000) within a month to the

authority to be prescribed in each category of

such persons.

• Report about any monetary dealings above a

particular limit to be prescribed with persons

with whom they have official dealings.

• Report about the employment of any near

relative under any person or company with

whom they have official dealings.

• Detailed mechanism needs to be worked out to

ensure compliance with such requirements

with provisions for punitive action in case of

non-compliance.

It may be agreed that such requirements will place

unnecessary fetters or cause unnecessary inconvenience to

politicians as many of them are businessmen or

professionals, already having huge assets or sources of

income and that such detailed reporting may not be
practicable. Nevertheless, people of this country do

deserve to know about the assets of those who have

themselves chosen to be in public life and who would be

governing them. Those who chose to be in public service

owe at least this much to the people of this country.

Transparency about the assets of those holding high public

offices may be useful at least for forming public opinion, if

not for the proof of cases of disproportionate assets

against the erring ones. And, who knows, it may go a long

way in curbing corruption in public life whose tentacles are

all pervasive in all walks of life in the country today.

• The All India Services (Conduct) Rule 1968

(Page No.186):

10. Subscriptions.-No member of the Service

shall, except with the previous sanction of the Government

or of such authority as may be empowered by it in his

behalf ask for, or accept, contributions to or otherwise

associate himself with the raising of any fund or other

collections in cash or in kind in pursuance of any object

whatsoever.
11. Gifts

11(1) A member of the service may accept gifts

from his near relatives or from his personal friends having

no official dealings with them, on occasions such as

wedding, anniversaries, funerals and religious functions

when the making of gifts is in conformity with the

prevailing religious and social practice, but he shall make a

report to the Government if the value of such gift exceeds

Rs.5,000/-.

Page No.237: GOVERNMENT OF INDIA'S DECISIONS

UNDER RULE 11:

1. The criteria to decide acceptance of gift my a moS

or his members of the family is whether it is inspired

by his official position: - The main criteria to be followed

in deciding whether a member of the Service or a member

of his family, should be permitted to retain a gift would be

whether it has been inspired by his official position and

also whether it is likely to embarrass or influence him,

either immediately or prospectively in the discharge of his

official duties.
Page No.252:

2.1 Since the amount received, by a subscriber from the

chit fund by bid would be more than the amount

subscribed by him and the difference will have to be made

good by him by future subscriptions upto the total period

of the chit fund, the amount received in such case would

amount to loan received from the chit fund company.

Since the chit fund company is not a banking company and

the provisions of the
Banking Regulations Act
1949 are not

therefore, applicable to such companies, a member of the

Service has to obtain permission of the Government under

proviso to sub-rule(4) of rule 16 of the All India Services

(Conduct) Rule, 1968 for receiving the money from the

chit fund companies in such cases. As regards (ii) if the

amount received from the chit fund exceeds Rs.2,000 a

member of the Service has to report to the Government

under sub-rule (4) of the rule 16 ibid because the amount

received by him would not be exclusively the amount

subscribed by him but would also include the commission

payable by the chit fund company.

3. As regards (b), a member of the Service need not

obtain prior permission of the Government for taking a life
insurance policy. He will have, however, to submit a report

to the Government as laid down below:

(i) A member of the Service should submit a report to the

Government while taking an insurance policy if the annual

premium of it exceeds Rs.15,000/-. However, if the annual

premium first determined is less than Rs.15,000/- but on

conversion, it exceeds Rs.15,000/- a report to the

Government is necessary at the stage. When he receives

the sum assured as survival benefit/on maturity of the

policy he need not submit any report to the Government.

(ii) A member of the Service need not report to the

Government while taking an insurance policy annual

premium of which is less than Rs.2,000/-. He should

however, submit a report to the Government as the time

of receiving the sum assured as survival benefit/on

maturity of the policy.

4. As regards (c) while fixed deposits in a bank or

deposits in a Savings Bank account made by a member of

the service from out of his salary or accumulated savings

would not come within the scope of sub-rule(2), it would

be necessary for the member of the service to report to

the Government all purchase of Postal or National Savings
Certificates exceeding 15 Rs.2,000 in value, from such

accumulated Savings.

Service Law Dictionary (Page No.24):

Annual return of immovable property. An

information regarding the immovable property owned or

held on lease by an employee in his own name or in the

name of anyone else, as on the last day of the period to

which the return relates. Such a return is generally

prescribed in respect of the public servants who are high

up in the hierarchy or where the nature of their duties

thrown chances of corruption. The purpose is to keep in

touch with the financial status of the employee and also to

ensure a check on corruption. The accumulation of assets

disproportionate to one's known source of income is an

offence of criminal misconduct under
Sec.13(1)(e)
of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, punishable under

Sec.13(2)
.

The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964

prescribe such returns for Group 'A' and 'B' officers in

general [Rule 18(1)(ii)]. In addition, the Government has

reserved its right to call for a special return in respect of

both movable and immovable property from any
Government servant whenever they consider it appropriate

[Rule 18(4)].

THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - BY

MALIK'S COMMENTARY (page No.480,
Section 13
)

In State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar, A.I.R.1996 SC

722, the Court was concerned with the question as to

when opportunity of satisfactory account should be given

to the accused. The Supreme Court said that this

opportunity of satisfactorily explaining about his assets and

resources is before the Court when the trial commenced

and not at earlier stage. The Court said the finding that

principle of natural justice had been violated as no

opportunity was given before the registration of the case,

would be unwarranted. This was a case arising under

Sec.5(1)(e)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The

present provision of
Sec.13(1)(e)
of the new Act is parallel

to the provisions. These observations of the Supreme

Court go against the contention of the counsel for the

petitioner that there should be investigative trial by the

investigating officer. In this context, it is significant to note

that the words in clause (e) of
Section 13(1)
of the Act "if

he or any person on his behalf is in possession or has"
clearly suggest that if any person is in possession of assets

or pecuniary resources on behalf of the public servant, that

would be included in his assets, in the sense that he would

have to account for these assets also. In this context the

prosecution could prove that what is being held by another

person is in fact being held on behalf of public servant i.e.

he is the real source of that financial or pecuniary

acquisition by the other persons. Mere declaration in

income tax return of the other person when the income tax

officer does not challenge the source of pecuniary

resources could itself hardly provide a defence, at least the

prosecution is free to prove that these resources were held

for the accused and he was the real source of acquisition

of those assets. The prosecution cannot be debarred from

proving those facts merely on the ground that the other

persons declared those assets in his income tax returns.

There is no such interpretation of the law.

VALUATION OF BUILDINGS:

The Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant

submits that the valuation made by the Engineers of the

PWD Department is highly inflated. The rate of OTIS Lift

was checked in the spencers. He further submits that the
cost of the marbles and granites are assessed at a very

exorbitant value. The Engineers of the PWD, Government

of TamilNadu have not taken the sample marble and

granites and called for tenders as to what as the rate of

those marble/granites. Even the Forest Officers have not

been examined to evaluate the cost of the wood. Nobody

has certified that the wood used is a high quality teak

wood. He further submits that the trial court has simply

reduced the cost of construction to the extent of 20%.

This is based on guess work. He relies on Ex.D210.

Ex.D210 reads as under:

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
CENTRAL CIRCLE-II(2)
108, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600034

GIR No.701/95-96 & 96-97 :044-8268610/828201

extension 7025

Dated 10th December 1999

To,

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),
Central-II
Chennai-34.

Sir,

Sub: Assessment in the case of Miss. J.Jayalalitha-AY
1995-96 & 96-97 certain particulars to be gathered
at Mumbai-intimation regarding journey.
Ref: your letter in D.No.ITA Nos.67 & 65/99-2000
dated 01.12.1999.

As directed I have conducted enquiries with few of
the suppliers of Madras at Mumbai to ascertain the
prevailing rates as of now and the rates during the
financial year 1994-95 to 1996-97. The results of the
enquiries are as follows:

1. M/s Simplex Enterprises: Summons u/s 131 was
issued to Mr.K.K.Mistry, Partner. In response to the above
he has furnished the quotation of different varieties of
imported Italian marble as on 08.12.1999. The rate varied
between Rs.125/- to Rs.300/-.

In the same quotation he has mentioned that the
quality which was supplied to the assessee was "white
Karara" on random sized basis (unpolished) at a rate of
Rs.80/- per square feet. He has also furnished certain
invoices raised during March and April 1996 to certain
other parties, which reveal that the rate per square feet of
imported marble was between Rs.100/- to Rs.180/-.

2. M/s New Diamond Granite Export- summons u/s
131 was issued to Mr.K.Madasamy-DW96, partner. In the
quotation furnished the prevailing rates of different
qualities of imported marbles vary between Rs.80/- to
Rs.125/- per sq.ft. in respect of the rates for the three
financial years 1994-95 to 1996-97 he has mentioned in
the quotation that it varied between Rs.10/- to Rs.15/- on
either side (+ Rs.10 to Rs.15). He has also furnished
invoices raised during March 1995 and January 1996 in
respect of certain other clients and the prevailing rates
during that period was Rs.90/- to Rs.110/ per square feet.

3. M/s Pacific Marbles- summons u/s 131 was issued
to the sales executive Mr.Raghu Suhalka. In response to
the summons, he has furnished the quotation as on
08.12.1998, which shows that the different qualities of
rough marble slabs varied between Rs.90/- to Rs.150/- per
sq.ft. In respect of the rates prevailed during the financial
years 1994-95 to 1996-97 he has informed me that the
rates and the invoices raised to few clients will be
forwarded to me in a week's time. Since, they were all at
the head office at Udaipur.

4. Elegant Marbles and Grani Industries Ltd-
summons was issued to Mr.Rakesh Agarwal, Director. He
has furnished certain invoices raised to the clients during
April, June and September 1996. Which reveal that the
rate varies between Rs.100/- to Rs.130/- per sq.ft. In
respect of the unsigned quotation shown to him he has
informed me that he has not issued this quotation.

The copies of the quotations given by the above
concerns are enclosed for ready reference.

Yours faithfully,

(Dr.B.Senthil Kumar)
Deputy Commissioner of Income tax,
Central Circle II (2), Chennai.

Copy to: The joint Commissioner of Income tax, Central-II,
Chennai.
Ex.D321 was marked through DW.96 - K.M.Samy @

Madasamy has spoken about the marble slabs sold to

Deepti Jewellers, No.221/228, Moti Dharmakata Bldg.,

Mumbadevi Road, Bombay, invoice No.410 dated 20.1.96.

Particulars, marble slabs, 67 square feet rate at Rs.100/-.

Ex.D322 is the invoice No.414, dated 22.1.96. New

Diamond Granite Exports sold marble slabs to Swaraz

Holding Pvt. Ltd., Maisan Belveted Bldg., Churchgate,

Bombay. Square feet sold is 245.96 at rate of Rs.100/-.

Ex.D323 is the invoice No.391, dated 4.1.96. New

Diamond Granite Exports sold marble slabs to Jolly Maker,

No.2, Cuffe Parade, Bombay. Square feet sold is 80 at

rate of Rs.125/-. Ex.D324 is the invoice No.28.

The Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption

Department have valued construction of buildings at Rs.27

Crores. Therefore, he submits that the evidence of

prosecution as well as the defence may be considered and

recalculate the same.

I have carefully examined the evidence of PW.98 -

Velayudhan. He has worked as Assistant Executive

Engineer in Marina Division, Chennai, during the year
1996-97. He assessed the building at No.66, Anna Nagar.

In that building, there are ground floor and first floor. The

measurement of ground floor is 138.42 sq. meters -

1488.38 sq. feet. The area of the first floor is 151.42 sq.

meters i.e., 1628.17 sq. feet. Total extent is 289.84 sq.

meters i.e., 3116.55 sq. feet.

He further deposed that he assessed the building

Door No.5, Murugan Street, T. Nagar. He does not

mention about the measurement of the area. He

inspected the building at 3/178C, East Seashore Road,

Vettuvankeril. The building was incomplete. The area

measurement from outside and calculated area is 305.36

meters. He also inspected the building along with the team

pertaining to Building No.1, Murphy Street, Akkarai Village,

East Sea Shore Road. Total area is 369.27 sq. meters i.e.,

equivalent to 3970.64 sq. feet. He also inspected the

buildings in the grape garden premises at Jedi Metla,

Faseerabad, Rangareddy District, Andhra Pradesh. In that

place, a new building along with a compound was

constructed with an area of 986 sq. meters (10602.15 sq.

ft.).
During his cross examination, he states that they

took Andhra Pradesh PWD schedule rates, renovated

building is about 15 years old. They did not secure the

sanction plan.

PW.116 - A. Jayapal, was Executive Engineer,

Building Division-4, PWD, in the year 1996. He inspected

the building along with the team in building No.21,

Padmanabha Street, T.Nagar. First floor had an area of

158.49 sq. meters. Second Floor had area of 12.49 sq.

meters. Another Room plus toilet had area of 8.63 sq.

meters.

He has further deposed that he inspected a house at

Nos.149, 150, Sriramnagar, T.T.K.Road, Chennai. It was

an unfinished building. Basement area is 390.67 sq.

meters. Ground floor is 486.79 sq. meters. First floor is

266.17 sq. meters. Plan was sanctioned in the year 1995.

Construction was stopped about six months prior to

inspection.

He has further deposed that he took the

measurement for purpose of valuation of four buildings

located at Nos.1/240, New Mahabalipuram Road,
Enjambakkam. Marble slabs, Door frames and window

frames were kept.

He has further deposed that two buildings located at

2/1, B-3, Seashell Avenue, Sholinganallur village. The total

area 602.92 sq. meters.

He has further deposed that Second Building total

area - is 705.71 sq. meters.

Team inspected building at No.19, Pattammal Street,

Mylapore, Chennai. They considered only renovation work

for valuation. Building basement area - 42.06 sq. meters.

First floor area - 42.27 sq. meters. Second floor area

23.42 sq. meters. Door No.36, Poes Garden, Chennai was

inspected and newly built area of the main building was

72.27 sq. meters (777.09 sq.ft.). Newly built area on the

first floor was 49.12 sq. meters (528.17 sq. ft.). Highest

degree of marbles, granite stone slabs, sanitary and

bathroom fittings were used. Entrance of the dining hall

had very expensive sculpture carved structures. Almirahs,

sofa sets, tabletops were of high-quality materials.

Building was raised on concrete pillars. There was cinema

theatre attached to third and fourth floors. There was
Conference Hall. Tables, chairs and sofas found there

were of extraordinary craftsmanship. Campus had two

generators of 125 K.V.A. and 62.5 K.V.A. A total of 39 air-

conditioners, mini-cinema theaters, chandeliers were fixed

at many places. Ex.P.671 is the valuation report and the

valuation is Rs.7,24,98,000/-.

During his cross examination, he states that he did

not put the quotation for granites, marbles, electrical

items, ruby red stones, ornamental tiles, Dolpur stones.

Materials used for centering were damaged. Steel rods in

the columns were rusted. There was also a swimming

pool. Most of the sanitarywares were of Hindustan

Sanitaryware. Other fittings and pipes were of Jaguar

Company. They did not seek the opinion of the forest

department.

PW.146 - Kishore, Chief Engineer, was working in

Prashanth Film Laboratory as Chief Engineer in Recording

Section. In August 1995, Sri. Vijayan who was working in

Ex.Chief Minister Selvi Jayalalitha's house contacted over

the phone. He went to the House Door No.36, Poes

Garden, constructed in the third floor of the multi storied

building near house Door No.36, Poes Garden. He worked
for 4-5 days and installed the things according to their

instructions which was installed in mini theatre of the said

house for cinema viewing. He gave bill for the work of

Rs.25,000/-. Ex.P784 cheque was issued by Selvi

Jayalalitha for sum of Rs.25,000/-.

PW.153 - V.Baskaran was working as

Superintendent Engineer in Tamil Nadu Public Works

Department, construction Division (Taluk-I). He prepared

assessment for On the basis of the respective year of

construction and the schedule rate of PWD, they prepared

the assessment for

1) A.C.C go-down built in 1991-1992.

2) Workers Quarters constructing of ground floor - 5

houses and 1st floor - 5 houses built in 1994-95.

3) 2nd workers quarters consisting of 10 houses in

ground floor and 10 houses in I floor and a

guesthouse on the first floor and the platforms.

Besides, they prepared the assessment for the

compound wall build in 8 houses for the workers and

a residential bungalow for the Managing Directors.

The construction cost is as under:
Construction Cost: The direct contractor costs of labour,

material, equipment and services, contractor's overhead

and profit. Construction cost may not include the fees paid

to the architect and engineer and other consultants, the

cost of the land, rights of way, financing cost or other

costs which are defined in the contract documents as being

the responsibility of the owner or client.

Soft Costs: These are cost items added to the direct

construction cost - they include architectural and

engineering fees, legal permits and fees, financing fees,

construction interest and operating expenses, leasing and

real estate commissions, advertising and promotion, and

supervision costs.

Ex.P.645 is the proforma accompanying the

valuation report. Year of construction is 1995-96, new

building and old building renovation.

ABSTRACT ESTIMATE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
SENTRY SHED
ITEM NO.3

Sl. Quantity Description of Rate Per Amount
No. work

1. 19.312 Cost of 3385 1 65,371.00
m2 construction m2

2. Add for 9,805.00
external water
supply and
sanitary
arrangements
@15%

3. 11.45 Cost of 500 1 22,900.00
m2 marble m2
flooring

4. 65.66 Add extra for 32,930.00
m2 ornamental
tiles 500

Add for
service
charges @9% 9,850.00

TOTAL 1,41,180.00

As per Ex.P.645 (Vol.33 Page No.97), according to

the DVAC, and PWD Engineer, cost of constructions

measuring area is Rs.65,371/- for 19.312 sq. mtrs, 19.312

sq. mtrs= 207 sq. ft., 207 sq.ft. is approximately 2.07

squares. As per the evidence on record, the value of

construction for 207 sq.ft i.e., 2.07 squares is Rs.65,371/-.

Therefore, for one square, cost of construction is

approximately Rs.31,580/-. During the cross-examination

of PW107-Sornam at page No.9, paper book page No.225

of Volume-4, he clearly admits that there are two methods

to find building value. The detailed estimate and per

square foot method are the two ways. In this case, we

have adopted the per square foot method. In the instant
case, total constructed area is 1,66,839 sq. ft. Now the

question that arises for my consideration is, what is the

rate that has to be assessed for construction of one square

i.e., 10x10= 100 sq.ft. As stated earlier, the Public Works

Department fixes the rate reasonably at the higher rate,

taking into consideration of delayed payment and other

miscellaneous expenses and in case, if the contractor

borrows loan from the bank, the interest that is charged on

it is taken into consideration while PWD fixes the cost per

square. This is reasonably quite higher. The date of

construction is during the check period. Therefore,

considering the evidence of PW.107 and also Ex.P.645, I

assess the cost of construction for one square may be

around Rs.28,000/- at the relevant period. Normally, it

includes foundation, bed concrete, plinth area, wall along

with super structures, windows, doors, lintel, plastering,

internal painting of doors and windows, flooring,

electrification, water supply, sanitation, dadoing tiles,

laying of tiles. Difference amount has to be borne by the

owner in case granites or marbles are laid. Normally, it is

considered as extra work in so far as staircase, flagging

concrete, sump, pump, grill work. The Public Works
Department will have cost included for delay payment and

other miscellaneous expenses. No prudent owner will

agree for construction of a building adopting the PWD

rates. The PWD rates are reasonably high when compared

to the rate charged by the contractor when he constructs a

building adopting the method of square rate.

The total area constructed by the Accused Nos.1, 2,

3, 4, firms, companies is as under:

Sl. Description of Property Total Area Related
NO. constructed Documents
174 New/Additional 14357.22 Sq. Ex.P673
Construction in building at Ft.

5B & C East Coast Road,
Door No.4/130, Raja
Nagar, Neelankarai,
Chennai-41 (Ref. Doc.

No.4752/93 of S.R.O.
Adyar) Evaluation Report
176 New/Additional 14736.76 Sq. Ex.P662
construction in Farm Ft.
House Bungalows at
payannur in Chengai Anna
District.
177 New/Additional 20603.41 Sq. Ex.P663
Construction building at Ft.
Door No.48, Jawaharlal
Nehru Road, Industrial
Estate, Guindy,
Ekkatuthangal, Chennai
(M/s. Anjaneya Printers (P)
Ltd.)
178 New/Additional 24,198 Sq. Ft Ex.P643
construction in the
residential building at
D.No.3/178C,
Vettuvankeni, Chennai.
179 New/Additional 10860 Sq. Ft. Ex.P645
Construction in the
building in at the Grape
Garden Farm House, in the
limits of Jeedi Metla and
Pet basheerabad villages in
AP
180 New/Additional 5263.55 Sq. Ft. Ex.P661
construction in the posh
Bungalow at Siruthavur in
Chegai MGR Dist.
181 New Additional 3453.60 Sq. Ft. Ex.P671
Construction in the
residential building at
D.No.36, Poes Garden,
Chennai-86.
182 New/Additional 12311 Sq. Ft. Ex.P667
Construction in building at
149, 150 of TTK Road,
Chennai-18.
183 New/Additional 14115.68 Sq. Ex.P669
construction in at Sea Ft.
Shell Avenue No.2/1-B-3
Apartment Sholinganallore
Saidapet, Taluk.
184 New/Additional 1159.81 Sq. Ft. Ex.P670
construction in Building at
Door No.19, Pattammal
Street, Mylapore, Chennai.
185 New/Additional 3712.14 Sq. Ft. Ex.P666
Construction residential
building at Door No.21,
Padmanabha Street, T.
Nagar, Chennai.
186 New/Additional 3119.81 Sq. Ft. Ex.P641
Construction in residential
building at No. L/66, Anna
Nagar, Chennai.
187 New/Additional 2185.07 Sq. Ft. Ex.P642
construction in building at
Door No.5, Murugesan
Street, T. Nagar, Chennai-
188 New/Additional 21368.94 Sq. Ex.P668
Construction In Residential Ft.
Building (4 Nos.) in The
Campus At No.1/240,
Enjambakkam, in New
Mahabalipuram Road.
189 New/Additional 2925.62 Sq. Ft. Ex.P644
construction in residential
building at No.1, Murphy
St. Akkarai, Chennai.

190 New/Additional 9510. 45 Sq. Ex.P677
Construction Building at Ft.
S.No.32/2-4, Plot Nos.S-7,
Ganapathy Colony, Tr.Vi-

Ka Indl. Estate, Guindy,
Chennai-32.

191 New/Additional 2953.65 Sq. Ft. Ex.P674
construction Buildings and
the change of roof for the
works shed at MF-9,
Guindy Industrial Estate,
Chennai-32.
1,66,839.68
Total Sq.ft

Total area granites used in the evaluated building

Sl. No. Particulars Documents Total area

1. Land & building at Anna Ex.P.641 24.69 m2
Nagar

2. No.5, Murugesan Street Ex.P.642 Nil

3. 3/17, East Coast Road Ex.P.643 Nil
Vettanankani

4. 1, Murphy Street Ex.P.644 4.926 m2

5. Jeedimetla & Pet Ex.P.645 165.23 m2
basheerabad, AP

6. Siruthavoor Farm House Ex.P.661 28.65 m2

7. Payyanur building Ex.P.662 28.19 m2

8. Anjaneya Printing press at Ex.P.663 675.74 m2
Ekkaduthangal

9. Anjaneya Printing Press, Ex.P.666 19 m2
Padmanabh Nagar

10. Building at 149, 150 TTK Ex.P.667 Nil
Road

11. Sy.No.1/240, Ex.P.668 Nil
Enjambakkam building

12. Sy.No.2/1, E-3 Ex.P.669 18.83 m2
Apartment, Sholinga 10.22 m2
Nallur Village

13. Door No.19, Pattaimal Ex.P.670 Nil
Street, Mylapore Chennai

14. No.36, Poes Garden Ex.P.671 605.76 m2
33.63 m2
33.60 m2
231.47 m2
39.20 m2

15. Plot No.7, East Coast Ex.P.673 111.78 m2
Road, Door No.4130, 122.98 m2
Rajanagar, Neelakankai

16. MFT, Guindy Industrial Ex.P.674 8.27 m2
Estate

17. Compound wall, security Ex.P.675 29.71 m2
shed,

18. Door No.213, St. Mary's Ex.P.676 Nil
Road, Menthavali,
Chennai

19. S.No.32/2-4, Plot No.7, Ex.P.677 32.82 m2
Ganapathy Colony Road,
VK Industrial Estate
Guindy

20. Ponnagar, Trichy Ex.P.782 109.89 m2
2384.3 m2
TOTAL
25662.22
sq.ft.

1 Square Metre= 10.763 Sq. Ft.

1 Square Feet= 0.093 sq.mtr.

1 Square = 10 x 10 sq. ft.

ANNEXURE-IV MARKED THROUGH PW.259
EXPENDITURE INCURRED BETWEEN 1-7-91 AND 30-4-96
TOWARDS SANCTION PLAN & ARCHITECT FEES

Sl.No. Details of Expenditure Amount in
Rs.

Amount Paid to Corporation of Madras
1 towards sanction of building plan in 14,560.00
respect of M/s. Anjaneya Printers (P) Ltd.,
at No.21, Padmanabha Street, T. Nagar,
Chennai-17,
Amount paid to Corporation of Madras
towards building plan in respect of M/s.
2 Lex Property Development Ltd., No.149,
and 150, TTK Road, Chennai-18 1,45,320.00

Amount paid to Corporation of Madras for
3 building plan at No.36, Poes Garden, for
additional construction
12,700.00
Amount paid to corporation of Madras, for
4 building plan at No.5, Murugesan Street,
T. Nagar, Chennai.

70,140.00
Amount paid to Corporation of Madras for
5 building plan (Jaya Publications) at No.19,
Pattammal Street, proposed additions and
regularization of the existing building
1,350.00
Amount paid to Corporation of Madras
towards sanction of Building plan in
6 respect of M/s Jaya Publications at plot
no.S-7, Ganapathy colony, Guindy
Industrial Estate (Idhayam Publication
Property)

(i) Development charge
Rs.2500/-

(ii) Security Deposit
Rs.21,000/-
(iii) Car Parking Relaxation
Rs.30,000/- 99,295.00
(iv) Building plan Sanction
Rs.45,795/-

Total
Rs.99,295/-
Amount Paid To Corporation Of Madras

For Building Plan At No.36, Poes Garden
7 Additional Block.

Rs. 2,850.00
Rs. 550.00
Rs. 2,250.00
Rs.21,085.00
----------------
26,735.00
Rs.26,735.00
---------------

8 Amount paid to Corporation of Madras for

building plan at No.36, Poes Garden, for
additions of security room 10,925.00
Amount paid to Corporation of Madras for
9 building plan at No.48, Inner Ring Road,
Ekkatuthangal, Guindy (i.e., M/s Sastri
Nuts and Plates Manufacturing (P)
Ltd.,M/s Anjaneya Printers (P) Ltd.,
29,850.00
Amount paid to Corporation of Madras
10 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 1,785.00
11 Amount paid to MMDA for building plan
approval at Plot.No.6, Thiru Vi-Ka
Industrial Estate, Guindy,
4,76,525.00
12 Amount paid towards demolition cost of
the old building at door No.213, St.Mary's
Road, mandaveli, Chennai-28
18,570.00
13 Amount paid to Tr. A.K. Vijaya Shankar
from CA 2219 of Canara Bank, Mylapore 20,000.00
of Tmt. J. Elavarasi

14 Amount paid to Tr.A.K.Vijaya Shankar
from CA 1171 of Indian Bank,
Abiramapuram of Tmt.J.Elavarasi.

20,000.00
15 Amount paid to MMWSSB from CA 2219 of
Canara Bank, Mylapore of Tmt. J. 17,305.00
Elavarasi

TOTAL 9,65,060.00

In the instant case, total constructed area is

166834.68 sq. feet. Now the question that arises for my

consideration is what is the rate that has to be assessed

for construction of a square [10 x 10] = 100 sq. feet. As

stated earlier, the Public Works Department fixes the rate

reasonably at the higher rate taking into consideration of

delayed payment and other miscellaneous expenses to the

contractor. As stated earlier, as per PWD itself, the

construction cost per square will be Rs.31,580.19/-. This is

reasonably quite higher. The date of construction is during

the check period. The construction rate per square may be

somewhere around Rs.28,000/-.

In the instant case, Team of Engineers inspected

several buildings and they valued the buildings. PW.107

who is Superintendent Engineer, PWD, has deposed that
there are two methods to find building value, detailed

estimate and per square foot are two ways. Though

several Engineers have inspected the buildings mentioned

in the annexures and the valuation report have been

prepared, in some valuation not all the Engineers who

inspected the buildings have affixed their signatures.

Some of the Engineers who valued the reports have been

examined as defence witnesses. Though there are about

14 Engineers who inspected the building and prepared the

valuation report, when they entered into witness box,

except marking documents they have not spoken anything

about measurement of the floor area where marbles and

granites are laid. The measurement relevant to this has

not been furnished by them while giving evidence.

I have carefully examined the exhibits and ascertain

the square feet even though it is mentioned in square

meters. The Engineers who gave evidence before the

Court have not stated as to what was the square feet of

the building, how many square feet marbles has been laid,

how many square feet granite have been laid. The

valuation report relating to laying of granites and marble

stones on the floor do not prove themselves. The facts
mentioned therein have to be proved by evidence after

giving opportunity to opposite parties to contest the

correctness of such evidence by cross examination. It is

well settled that the documents do not themselves prove

the contents therein. The proof of contents have to be

given by cogent evidence. In the instant case, Engineers

who have deposed before the Court have omitted to state

the measurement of the buildings, measurement of the

area of laying granites and marbles. They simply stated

that highest quality of granites, marbles, sanitary fittings,

electrical fittings were installed. The samples of marbles

and granites were not extracted and no quotations have

been sought from the granite suppliers. Everything

assessed is done more or less on guesswork rather than

actual price prevailing during the check period. There is

positive evidence to the effect that the sanitary

equipments used are of jacquard make and granite and

marbles are more or less of the cost of Rs.70 to Rs.100 per

square feet. I have adopted the method of determining

the valuation on the square feet method as stated by

PW.107. I have calculated price of 1 square at the rate of

Rs.28,000/- towards cost of construction and for extra
work it is valued separately. Accordingly, I have calculated

the cost of construction as under:

Sl. AMOUNT
No. PARTICULARS
1. Construction cost for 1668.39 Rs.4,67,13,800/-
squares @ Rs.28,000/- during
the check Period amounts to
2. Cost of marbles/granites Rs. 25,66,200/-
Interior decorations
3. Architect fees/sanction plan Rs. 9,65,060/-
Extra work charges:

4. Staircase, sump, overhead Rs. 40,000/-
tank

5. OTIS Lift Rs. 15,000/-

6 Air Conditioners Rs. 7,54,000/-

TOTAL Rs.5,10,54,060/-

MARRIAGE EXPENDITURE:

In respect of Marriage Expenses, the following

prosecution witnesses were examined, they speak as

under:

PW.181 - Thangarajan, Assistant Engineer, Building

Construction-3, Sub-division-II, Chennai. The

Superintendent of the Anti-Corruption Department

entrusted him to estimate the expenses incurred at the

wedding and reception of V.N.Sudhakaran, foster son of

former Chief Minister Selvi Jayalalitha. He consulted
Architect Vijayashankar Art Director Thota Tharani, his

assistants Gopinath and Ramesh, B.S.Mani, the Electrician,

they went to MRC Nagar, place of wedding and saw the

place of reception, then to the film city J.J.Nagar, at

present it is renamed as MGR Film City. He submitted

estimate report. Architect Vijayshankar gave him the

drawing of the wedding choultry and the measurement of

the pandal. Thota Tharani gave only the sketch for

decorative arches, work was done by his Assistant -

Ramesh. He came to know the measurements. Ex.P1019

is the estimate report. For the wedding at MRC Nagar,

pandal of 2,35,200 Sq.ft. with coconut leaf inclined on both

side was erected. They estimated the cost to a sum of

Rs.18,81,600/-. For dining separate coconut thatched

pandal was laid at 2,16,000 Sq.ft. estimated cost is

Rs.17,28,000/-. For the special guest, separate meal

lounge with iron sheet roof was made for 2,400 sq.ft.

estimated cost is Rs.3,84,000/-. At the entrance of main

pandal also, ceiling with a decoration was laid for 1,57,980

sq.ft, color spreads were decorated with gift papers, it was

estimated to Rs.66,35,160/-. A permanent wedding dais

was constructed with bricks steel sheets and asbestos
sheets. In that, two bedrooms, two reception halls, two

bathrooms were constructed. The stage was built in 9,392

sq.ft. The sketch of the wedding stage was attached as

per Ex.P1019. Its value has been estimated to

Rs.35,22,000/- Four Air-Conditioners were fixed for bride

and bridegroom. The expenses incurred and that was

estimated to Rs.3,00,000/-. 2,500 VIP Chairs were used,

Rs.1,25,000/- is its value. 10,000 ordinary Chairs were

used, its value is Rs.1,50,000/-. 12,800 Chairs were used

at the Dining Hall, its value is Rs.1,28,000/-. 4,800 Dining

Tables were used, estimated value is Rs.48,000/-. For VIP

Dining Tables and Chairs, Rs.2,72,880/- has been spent as

per the receipts. Rs.7,28,527/- has been spent on Roads.

A total of Rs.2,11,00,000/- was spent on pandal, wedding

dais, Chairs and Tables for the wedding at MRC Nagar.

Main pandal was erected for 14,400 sq. ft., it is valued at

Rs.1,15,200/-. Its roof was covered with iron sheets. It

was put for about 5,500 sq. ft. at Rs.87,400/-. The

expenses incurred only on pandal at the film city was

Rs.15,00,000/-. In Ex.P1019, it is revealed that estimate

for pillars, color lights, stages, decorative arches erected

during reception at Film City and the wedding at MRC
Nagar was Rs.3,65,00,000/-. They have prepared and

given the total estimate for Rs.5,91,00,000/-. In Ex.P1019

report, the expenses incurred on meals, tiffin, dinner of

the pre-wedding day, drinking water, Crackers, Tonga,

Elephant, Horse, Chariot, Video, TV's Folk Dance,

Bharatanatyam, Music performance were not included.

During his cross-examination, he states that he has

prepared the estimate on the basis of the sketch. He has

signed in the sketch. Other than that, there was no

connection between him and the sketch. Nobody has sent

him an invitation for the wedding. He has not attended

the wedding. He does not know personally whether

reception Hall, wedding pandal and decorative arches were

there. For the preparation of the report, whatever is heard

and seen from the sketches, he has prepared the report.

He does not know personally whether the details of the

drawing were correctly followed. In this sketch, nothing

about decorative arches is mentioned. Thota Tharani is

one of the best Art Directors in India. The handwritten

material of Thota Tharani was not attached to his report.

He has prepared the report based on ten categories under

the heading of General Discussion. He had been to MRC
Nagar. When he went there, it was a vacant land. He did

not see the marriage choultry mentioned in item No.1 in

his report. The second item i.e. mainpandal was also not

there. The third item - pandalpark, common dining with

kitchen set was also not there. The fourth item pertains to

VIP dining with kitchenset was not there. He did not see

the item written under the headings Arches, Stages,

Pillars, Cut-outs from Adyar Signal to MRC Nagar and near

and around No.36, Poes Garden. The seventh item is

under the heading of Electricityarrangements. He did not

see those electrical arrangements. He did not see the

Mantap above the stage mentioned as in the ninth item.

He did not see the tenth item - the artificial grass land and

the artificial fountain. He did not see the main pandal

supposed to have been erected by J.J.Film City. He did

not see pandal, kitchen set, arches and the electrical

illuminations. What he has written in page No.15 of his

report is that what was done in MRC Nagar and in the Film

City. What he has mentioned in his report is on hearsay.

He enquired with shopkeepers like Yesu Udayavan

Ashirvada Nadar, Jyothi Traders. He enquired with regard

to erecting of pandal, chairs etc. with them. With regard to
Carpet, he enquired M.A.Jacob. With regard to

illumination arrangements, he enquired Suresh Electrical.

With regard to Sound Service, he enquired

Thiruvengadam. In Jyothi shop, he enquired about pandal.

He did not ask for any quotation. It was orally done and

he wrote them. He did not attach any notes. He did not

ask about six shopkeepers whether they took part in the

wedding. He did not enquire about the persons, who

erected the pandal and the arches. For preparing the

report, photographs were not relied. He has not seen any

photos connected with the marriage. He did not enquire

anybody to confirm the sketches. The estimates with

regard to the matters in the drawing were put based on

the measurement mentioned in that sketch. The drawing

is not approved. Based on this drawing, building may or

may not have built. He does not know who erected the

pandal. Vijayashankar gave him the information about the

area. The estimate area of the main pandal is 2,35,200

sq. ft. In his estimate report, no mention is made that

how many ordinary decorative arches and how many

special decorative arches were there. He did not measure

the length and breadth of the place, where decorative
arches were erected. After enquiring with A.K.Ramesh and

Srinivasan, he calculated the rate at Rs.135/- per square

feet for decorative arches. There is no connection between

the stage mentioned in sketch and the stage mentioned in

the item No.2 of page No.3 of his estimate report. He has

not mentioned about how much material is needed for one

pillar. He has not mentioned about the shape of that pillar

in his estimate report. He came to know about this pillar,

only when he spoke to others. No sketches were made to

describe the models. In his estimate report, he has not

mentioned that there were three types of pillars. He did

not enquire any General Public regarding the place where

the cut-outs were fixed. He does not know from where the

decorative lamps, Halogen lamps, tube-lights, generator,

mobile generator were taken on rent. In his report, he has

mentioned the capacity level of the mobile generator. He

has not seen the Account Registers with regard to the

amount remitted to the Chennai Corporation. In his report,

he has mentioned that 20,86,000 units of electricity had

been consumed. But he had not indexed it. Nobody has

to pay the electricity charges using the generator. He has

not mentioned in his report that how much electricity has
been consumed from the generator and through the

electricity board. He does not know how much money has

been remitted to the electricity board. In the sketch

attached to his report, no mention was made about the

Marriage Mantap. In the drawing, no mention was made

about the artificial grass lawn and the Korean grass. In his

report, at page No.35 of the tenth item was allocated for

unexpected expenses. He did not measure and see the

vacant place at MRC Nagar. He did not ask any

Contractors to draw the sketch for the measurement of the

main pandal. He did not enquire about any pandal

contractors. He did not know how much money was paid

to that contractor. He did not know whether it was done

by onetime payment or whether done by the AIADMK

volunteers themselves. In his report, he has not

mentioned how many fronts (Coconut thatch) were

required for that main pandal. He did not know how many

Caesarian woods were needed. He did not know the person

who made the dining hall pandal. He did not know how

much money was paid to him. He did not know whether

only one contractor had put up or the Anna All India DMK

Volunteers had put it up. He did not receive the sketch for
that dining hall from anybody. He did not know the

information as to who constructed the VIP dining hall.

Nobody gave him any sketch regarding that. In his report,

he did not mention the cost of one sheet. He has not

mentioned how many sheets were used, the names of the

technical experts to whom he made enquiries regarding

the rates. He did know whether the wedding of the son of

Thiru Thangarajan took place under the leadership of the

Chief Minister. The new wedding stage height was not

mentioned in the sketch attached with Ex.P1019. He did

not measure the place in MRC ground where the wedding

was supposed to have taken place. On 18.4.1997, he

went and saw the place. The area of MRC is 5,33,867

sq.ft, which includes the stage. Vasudevan and he himself

did the estimate of all the variety of materials mentioned

in his estimate report. The length and width of the VIP

chairs and the ordinary chairs were not mentioned. The

number of chairs put for wedding are 12,500 (including the

VIP Chairs). He did not have the information whether the

people occupied 12,500 chairs or whether they were

vacant. The bill number was not mentioned in his report.

The date of the bill was also not mentioned. In his report,
he did not mention either the type of artificial fountain or

the length and width of it. He has not seen the fountain.

In his report, he has not mentioned the length and width

of the artificial grass lawn and Korean Grass, the number

of flower pots and its varieties. The flower pots price

differs depending on the quality of the flowers. He did not

mention the type of flower pots and the area of Korean

Grass. He has not mentioned in his report whether

Banana trees were planted. He has not prepared any

estimate report in connection with wedding. He has not

constructed any artificial fountain. He has not mentioned

about the pressure and the capacity of the artificial

fountain. He has not mentioned in his report the horse

power of the machinery. He did not consult the

Horticultural officer at Tharamani regarding the

preparation of estimate report. He has not mentioned in

his report what the unforeseen item No.1. Chair needs an

area around 4 ½ sq.ft. one cannot sit by putting a chair in

lesser area than that. If it is a VIP chair, then they need

atleast 6 sq.ft. To put VIP chairs, 15,000 sq.ft. space is

required and for ordinary chairs, 4500 sq.ft. space is

required. For the chairs at the main pandal, 60,000 sq.ft.
space is required. 672 sq.ft. is the length and 70 ft. is the

width of the main pandal. The floor area was 2,35,200

sq.ft. In the abstract, it is mentioned as plywood false

ceiling. In his report, he has mentioned the information as

false ceiling. Carpets are of two types. One is cloth and

the other is coir. He did not mention in his report what

type of carpets were used there. In his report, he did not

mention how many beams were supporting the false

ceiling. In his report, he did not mention the price, length,

breadth and the depth of the glittering paper used. In his

report, he did not mention how many caesarian sticks

(beams) were needed to make the frames length and

crosswise. He did not mention what types of ropes were

used. No differentiation was made for the bamboo ropes.

In his report, he did not mention the length of the rope

needed. The estimate report was prepared on the

instruction of PW.259 - Nallamma Naidu. He accepted the

job since it is possible to the estimate if the drawing and

the measurements are given. The only drawing given to

him was the one attached to Ex.P1019.

From Ramesh, he did not take in writing the

measurements of the stage and the places where those
stages were erected. He did not mention separately in his

estimate report, the height of the room. He did not

mention the carpet area of the room. It is not possible to

give individual estimate for the buildings in the sketch.

Further, when he saw, they were not there. It was not

possible to say what kind of materials are used for the

building if the estimate report is prepared by looking at the

sketch. As per the market price, he has mentioned the

rate as Rs.375/- per sq.ft. He did not enquire about the

kind of brick that has been used to construct that building.

He did not see 1995 account register to find out at what

price the bricks were sold. He did not mention in his

report how many bricks were used. In his estimate report,

he did not mention the schedule rate. He did not mention

the list of material costs, the cost of material and the cost

of labour. His report is prepared without the break-up of

the particulars. He did not mention what type of ceramic

tiles was put. He did not mention the type of air cooling.

He has not specified the number of wooden doors and

aluminium doors. He did not enquire about who erected

the pandal. He did not write the name of the contractor in

his report. He followed the observed data to estimate.
There is a difference in rate with regard to the standard

rate and observe rate. No explanation has been given in

his report for having taken observe rate and leaving out

the standard rate. The information regarding how many

lorry sea sand were used to fill in the stage is not there in

his report. He has not given any break-up figures and did

not collect any evidence to show Rs.375/- is the amount

per sq.ft. in his report. The items mentioned in his

estimate report at page 21 of item No.3 is the estimate of

the basic items they brought on their own and

manufactured pipe, fittings, asbestos cement sheets, steel

stressors, doors, aluminium doors as such might have

been rented. He did not mention which company AC was

used. He did not mention in his report the measurement of

coir mat used for the main pandal. He did not mention in

his report about the rent of coir mat. It was not possible

to find out who prepared the food for that wedding. He

could not find out who did the video coverage. Depending

on the type of chairs, its rent differs. Stage mentioned in

his report includes the rooms of the bride and the

bridegroom. In his report, he has not given the break up

details of a material and its value estimate. No individual
labour charges were mentioned for anything. He did not

mention in his report how much thickness of thermocoal

has been used. The price differs from brand to brand. He

enquired and found out the sand rate as Rs.124/- per

cubic feet. Upto Rs.30 Lakhs, the Superintendent Engineer

can accept the estimate. The estimate above 50 Lakhs,

only the Chief Engineer should give the acceptance. He

did not mention in his report, what kind of country wood

was used. He did not mention in his report, what width of

plywood was used. There are two types of GI sheets plain

and bent. 2-3 designs are in it. Many companies

manufacturing it and they come in different thickness.

There is price difference according to manufacturers.

There is a lot of difference between the ordinary sheet and

the bent sheet. In his report, he has not mentioned

whether sheets have been taken on rent and on the rental

basis. He did not mention in his report the length and

width of the barricade sheet. He did not go through either

the bill or the document connected with barricade. He did

not attach any document with his report to indicate the

rate/square feet to fit on barricade. There are no different

sized in Gravel. Observe cost includes the loading and
unloading of material and conveyance charges. The area

of the kitchen was 49,275 sq.ft.(including all the kitchen in

MRC Nagar). In his report, he has not mentioned whether

the Korai mats were brought. He did not mention the

measurement of the back side pandal. The reason to

mention as JCB earth mover in his report was that the

contractor told him that he used that machine. He did not

take and attach any document with his report from that

contractor. He did not mention in his report whether one

or more JCB machines had been used. He did not mention

in his report whether the contractor had rented the JCB

machine or used his own. In his report, he did not

mention whether after the use of the JCB machine the

Road Rollers and people too worked. He did not take any

report from the contractor who was supposed to have

worked with the JCB machine. There is a Registration

number for JCB. In his report, he did not mention the

registration number of that machine. He did not look into

any logbook. There was a school near that ground. He did

not enquire with that school or the residents in the

quarters whether the JCB machine was used. He did not

mention in his report what color paper flowers was used.
95,200 sq.ft. refers to the ceiling area of the pandal. He

did not mention in his report the main pandal was divided

into two parts. He did not mention in his report decoration

of the pandal was this way. He did not mention in his

report the expenses for shaping those flowers. He did not

mention water supply charges, labour charges, plumber

charges.

In his report, he has not mentioned that how much

quantity of jelly, tar have been used, water tank, length,

width and height of the wall, nature of roof, septic tank,

door ventilator, its quality and labour charges.

In the J.J.Film City abstract, he has mentioned item

Nos.1(A) - pandal and dining pandal, 1(C) - kitchen

pandal, false ceiling, G.I. sheet covering the kitchen, Khora

mat, red carpet for dining hall, wall banner for dining hall,

rent for the chairs, rose wood chairs, plastic chairs,

banquet chairs, plastic holder chairs, table cloth, buffet

cloth.

He did not mention the material with which the

pandal was made, thickness of the pillars, rental charges

of G.I. sheet, length and width of kitchen pandal, square
beams, type of wood, reapers, glittering paper, ventilators,

grass mat. In his report, he did not mention that as to

which the contractor erected the pandal, whether the

carpets were rented or not. He has not explained in his

report what is meant by rose-wood cushion chair or

banquet chair. He did not mention in his report whether

illumination were there on these arches, whether the

arches were built with cement, whether paint were applied,

whether decorative lamps were taken on rent or not, type

of generator and capacity. He did not check the receipt or

amount remitted to Chennai Corporation in respect of

Rs.18,75,000/-. He did not avail the Horticultural Expert

to estimate the valuation of grass. He did not watch either

the video or film or photographs related to this wedding

function. He did not mention in his report or in the

abstract, Rs.76,787/- was spent towards, coffee, tea,

lunch, rope and nail.

PW.183 - T.Ramesh speaks about printing of

wedding invitation. PW.237 - Jawahar, Assistant

Secretary to the Chief Minister, has placed order to print

65,000 wedding invitations and 5,000 car passes. A-1

gave cheque for Rs.11,00,000/-.
PW.184 - A.Vincent, a travel agent, who has sent

ten cars in connection with the marriage of

V.N.Sudhakaran to the guests. He has received Ex.P1285

- a cheque for a sum of Rs.27,502/- issued by

Selvi.Jayalalitha.

PW.185 - A.Premkumar, who was running a Tourist

Car Rental Company. He has sent 15 cars for the marriage

of V.N.Sudhakaran. Selvi. Jayalalitha has paid the amount

of Rs.19,211/- through cheque - Ex.P1286.

PW.186 - Chalapathy Rao was the furniture hirers.

Sachithanandam, PRO of former Chief Minister requested

for tables and chairs in connection with V.N.Sudhakarn's

marriage. He gave the cheque for Rs.1,30,000/- as

advance amount. He asked to deliver the tables and chairs

to MRC Nagar and MGR Film City. Mr.Naveen - Deputy

Manager of Adayar Par Sheraton Hotel asked him to supply

decorative articles and clothes. These requisitions were

sought in connection with the marriage of V.N.Sudhakaran.

Cheque for a sum of Rs.57,250/- was given and the same

was issued by Selvi Jayalalitha on 6.9.1995. The balance

amount of Rs.2,65,000/- was with them.
During the cross-examination, he states that certain

articles were rented-out for the purpose of party function.

PW.189 - Mahalingam was the office administrator of

the All India Anna DMK Head Office from 1991 to 2000.

He was entrusted with the responsibilities of sending

wedding invitation of V.N.Sudhakarn's marriage to the

party members by post. He has sent 56,000 invitations

from Anna Salai Head Post Office to the party members.

He has paid Rs.4/- for each invitation. Its total cost was

about Rs.2,24,000/-. He has received amount from

Jawahar Babu, Joint Secretary of the former Chief Minister.

56,000 invitations were sent by his Assistants namely,

Ramesh, Sukumar, Krishna Murthy, Mani and others. He

did not sign the vouchers for having received any amount.

He does not have any documents to show whether

invitations were sent by Certificate of Posting or by

Registered Post. Accused No.2 and accused No.4 did not

give money to him.

PW.191 - V.Srinivasan is a musical instrument

Mandolin player. Mr. Jawahar asked him over phone that

not to accept any other appointments on the day of
marriage of Sudhakaran. He went to marriage reception

which was held at film city, Cinema Nagar, Egomore,

Chennai and conducted the Mandolin Orchestra. When they

asked him about the money, he refused to take the

money, as it was Chief Minister's function. They gave him

a silver plate, silk saree and a small kumkum box. When

he was enquired by the police, he handed over the above

mentioned things to the police. The police have taken the

silver plate, small kumkum box and silk saree from him in

the year 1997. Mahazar was not drawn at that time. When

he participated in the musical programmes, these types of

gifts would be given to him.

PW.196 - Aijaz Ahmed, Tailor, who was running a

shop in the name of Syed Bakher & Company. He stitched

the clothes for V.N.Sudhakaran for his marriage. He has

received the cheque for a sum of Rs.1,41,025/- towards

stitching charges from Ramkumar.

PW.200 - K.P.Muthusamy is the retired Chief

Engineer. He has deposed that after retirement, he has

registered in "Fellow of Institute of Valuers Organisation".

He has the capacity of assessing buildings. Jawahar told
him to come to the Chief Minister's residence, because a

marriage was going to be held, so many arrangements

should be made. Jawahar took him to the first floor and

introduced him to Sasikala. Jawahar told her that he had

come over there to look after the pandal work. He has

deposed that the pandal was made with coconut leaves for

the marriage functions. The pandal work was going on in

MRC Nagar. Vijaya Shankar, architect gave him a plan for

pandal and stage arrangements. The contractors Rajappa

Nadappa, Rajagopal Ramachandra Nadar and Kumareshan

Nadar were also present there. In MRC Nagar, he got

introduced to PWD contractor Mr. Ethiraj. 5 main pandals

to perform the marriage ceremonies with the

measurement of 70 ft to 750 ft were put up. They were

constructed with coconut leaves. Coconut leaves pandals

with the measurement of 60 ft to 450 ft were put up to

serve food for the public. 2 pandals with the measurement

of 60 ft and 200ft for serving food for VIP were put by

Mannargudi Rajagopal. One cooking shed, for VIP's

measuring 45 ft. to 135 ft. was put with asbestos sheet.

The above mentioned pandals were put by Kumareshan

Nadar. Marriage platform, bathroom, the rooms for the
bride and bridegroom measuring 9392 sq.ft. were built

with bricks and roofed with AC sheet. This work was done

by Ethiraj. Air conditioners expenses were met by the

Former Chief Minister. The work of laying gravel road,

around the marriage plat form was done by K.V.

Natarajan. He brought 2-10 KW generators and 4 mobile

generators. The bride's father Mr. Narayanaswamy gave

him a total sum of Rs.16 Lakhs in 4 instalments. He told

him to submit the accounts to Ramkumar. Ramkumar is an

uncle of the bride. He received that amount and gave Rs.3

Lakhs to Gopinath, Rs.1,75,000/- to Pauldasan and

Rs.10,000/- to K.V. Natarajan. The wedding reception was

held in Cinema Nagar, Chennai on 10.09.1995. For that

the pandal work was done by Kumareshan Nadar. The

decoration work was done by a North Indian by name

Paulbabu. For this Rs.1.50 Lakhs was sent from Poes

Garden. The carpenter's wages, cost of plywood nails and

reaper were paid by him and he gave the vouchers for

that. For this function, 6 connections were taken from the

Electricity Board. From Adyar Vinayagam temple to MRC

Nagar, the paths were decorated with decorative lights by

R. Subramani and G.M. Samy by using the temporary
electrical connections. He gave Rs. 3,54,000/- and odd to

Mr. Subramanyam and Rs.4,89,000/- and odd to G.M.

Samy. He presented the accounts to Mr. Ramkumar and

handed over the remaining amount of Rs.4,422/- to him.

When he was supervising the work in MRC Nagar, one

person came and gave him the marriage invitation with a

silver plate, a silk saree, silk dhoti and silk angavastram.

During investigation, he handed over all these things to

the Anti-Corruption police. M.O. 1594 is the silver plate

given with the invitation, M.O. 1595 is the silk dhoti,

M.O.1596 is the silk angavastram and M.O. 1597 is the silk

saree were handed over. He did not tell the police about

the expenses of levelling. He did not tell particularly about

the number of AC machines. There are two kinds of

pandals, big and small, he only told which pandals should

be done by whom. He did not supervise the work done by

Art Director Gopinath. Ramkumar is one of Shivaji

Ganesan's son. He does not remember on which date

Rs.1.50 Lakhs was sent from Poes Garden. He does not

remember who brought that money and gave it to him.

He does not know personally, how much money was spent

in MRC Nagar for the marriage.
PW.214 - A.R.Rahman is a music composer. Selvi

Jayalalitha requested him to perform a musical programme

for her son Mr.Sudhakaran's marriage on 6.9.1995. Mr.

Bhaskaran along with his wife came to his house and gave

the invitation with 2 silk sarees, silver kumkum casket and

silver sandal bowl in a silver plate. During the

investigation, he handed over all these articles to the

officers of the Prevention of Corruption Department.

Prabhu, S/o Shivaji Ganesan also invited him personally

for this marriage. As per that on 6.9.1995, he performed

the musical programme for one hour. About 25 to 30

persons were in the orchestra. He did not charge any

amount for that programme.

During the cross-examination, he states that he

considered it as a privilege to conduct the music

programme. He did not ask for remuneration.

PW.224 - K.N.Thiyagarajaswamy has deposed that

during 1995, for Sri. V.N. Sudhakaran's marriage in

Chennai, he cooked exclusively for VIPs. Sasikala and her

sister-in-law Tmt. Santhana Lakshmi and others who

appointed him for the cooking. They told him to meet
Ramkumar. He supervised the preparation of afternoon

meal. For each leaf, he prepared three sweets including

carrot halwa, pachadi, two poriyals, chips, vada,

happalam, payasam, rice, sambar, rasam and curds.

Based on his fifty years experience and prices then

prevailed, he estimated that Rs.55 to Rs.60/- was spent to

each meal. About 2,000 VIPs consumed food. The VIP

dining place could seat about 350 to 400 persons at a

time. 20 persons worked under him. They gave him

Rs.11,850/- as salary. A person from Shivaji Films gave

the above mentioned cash. For 200 persons, six sacs rice

was used. 120 to 150 kgs. of vegetables were used. He

does not know anything about cool drinks, juice and

thambulam items.

During cross examination, he states that the bride is

the actor Shivaji Ganeshan's grand daughter. He received

payment in cash from Shivaji Films.

PW.228 - R.Rajasekaran speaks about the

expenditure of the marriage. He has deposed that 38th

item of Ex.P2218 contains 928 pages of Sudhakaran's

marriage expenditure. Bills and Receipts are at Ex.P2220.

Ex.P2220 is the letter written by Assistant Director of
Income-tax (Inv.), Unit-IV, Madras-34, which reads as

under:

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX
(INVESTIGATION) UNIT IV (4)
108, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Madras-600 034
Date:19.09.95
To,
Miss. J. Jayalalitha,
36, Poes Garden,
Madras-86.

Madam,
In connection with the recent marriage
celebrations of your foster son Shri V.N. Sudhagaran,
you are requested to furnish the following details:-

(1) The charges paid/payable for the use of the land at
M.R.C. Nagar in which the marriage was celebrated
together with the name and address of the person to
whom such charges are payable/paid.

(2) Expenditure incurred on the 'Pandal' at the marriage
site and details of payments made for this purpose to
the contractors together with their names and
addresses. The land are over which the pandal was
erected may also be indicated.

(3) Expenditure incurred on leveling the land and laying
of roads and construction of buildings at the marriage
site.

(4) Expenditure on the decoration of the marriage
pandal as well as the expenditure incurred on putting up
the wedding platform and the cost of decorations made
thereon.

(5) Expenditure in the printing and distribution of the
wedding invitations. In this connection, details of the
expenditure incurred to the gifts given to the invitees
along with the marriage invitation such as silver plates
etc, may also be given.
(6) Expenditure on the provision of food, tiffin and other
refreshments to the invitees on all the days of the
marriage celebrations including the expenditure incurred
at the time of marriage reception on 10.09.1995. Any
expenditure incurred in catering arrangements entrusted
to outside agencies may also be furnished.
(7) Expenditure on the electrical and lighting
arrangements for the marriage both at the marriage site
and elsewhere including the electricity charges
paid/payable.

(8) Expenditure on the purchase of flowers and on floral
decorations.

(9) Expenditure on vegetables, milk etc.,
(10) Expenditure on provision of accommodation to the
various invitees in hotels, guest houses and other
places.

(11) Expenditure in the hiring of cars and other vehicles
in connection with the marriage.

(12) Expenditure on the purchase of Jewellery for the
marriage.

(13) Expenditure on the dresses, clothes and other textile
items for the marriage.

(14) Expenditure in the video coverage of the function.

In this connection, details may also be furnished
regarding the expenditure incurred on the provision of
closed circuit T.V. facilities as well as the expenditure
incurred on photographs taken during the marriage.
(15) Expenditure in respect of the horse-drawn carriage
used at the time of "Mappillai Azhaippu".
(16) Expenditure on the crackers and other fireworks
during the marriage celebrations.

(17) Expenditure on the musical entertainment provided
on the 6th, 7th and 10th of September 1995.
(18) Expenditure in the purchase/hire of furniture for the
marriage.
(19) Expenditure on the gifts given to the volunteers and
others in connection with the marriage.
(20) Expenditure incurred on putting up the various
cutouts, mandapams, arches, statues, pillars, decorative
dais, banners etc.
(21) Details of gifts received on the occasion of the
marriage together with the details of persons who made
such gifts.

(22) Details of any other expenditure incurred in
connection with the marriage.

(23) Details of expenditure incurred in connection with
the betrothal function in June 1995.

While giving the details of the payments made in
respect of the various to whom such payments were
made, the date(s) on which the payments were made
and the mode of payment i.e., by cash, cheque /draft
may be specified.

The aforesaid information is called for under
section
133A(5)
of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Details called for
may kindly be furnished by 29.09.1995.

Yours faithfully,

(T.SASIKALA)
Asst. Director if Income Tax (Inv)
Unit-IV(4), Madras-34

The reply given by A-1 to the above said letter reads

as under:

To,
The Asst. Director off Income-Tax (Invn.)
Unit IV (4), 108, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Madras-600 034
Madam,
Sub: Furnishing of Details required by
your letter dated 19.9.1995-Reg.
The details required by you are furnished
seriatim:

1) No charge has been paid or is payable for the use of
the land in MRC Nagar in which the marriage was
celebrated.

2) No expenditure on the pandal at the marriage site
has been incurred by me, the same having been met by
the bride's family.

3) No expenditure on the items stated was incurred by
me.

4) Expenditure on the decoration of the pandal and the
wedding platform was met by the bride's family.

5) A sum of Rs.12,00,050/- was spent by me on the
printing of invitations, identity cards, car passes and
printed polythene bags, as per details below:

Sl. No. Address of the Cheque No. Amount
payee
1 M/s. Moulis 597103, Rs.11,00,000
Advertising 16.9.1995
Services (Pvt.) Ltd. Canara Bank,
Mylapore
Branch
2 M/s. Rock Aads. 597103, Rs. 30,050
Madras 15.09.1995
Canara Bank,
Mylapore

3. M/s. Madras Foils 597107, Rs. 70,000
Ltd. Madras 15.9.1995
Total Rs.12,00,050

A sum of Rs.2,45,000/- was incurred on distribution
expenses. No gifts were given to the invitees along with
the invitations.

6) Expenditure on provision of food & refreshments on
the evening of 6th September and the morning of 7th
September was incurred by me in respect of provisions
for reception paid to Mr. M. Abbas, Vikkiravandi vide
cheque No.597112/16.9.1995 drawn on Canara Bank,
Mylapore, Madras. Other expenditure on provision of
food and refreshments was incurred by Mrs. N. Sasikala
for the reception on evening of 10th September, 1995.

7) Electrical and lighting charges at the marriage site
were met by the bride's family & Mrs. N. Sasikala.

8) Expenditure on purchase of flowers and on floral
decorations incurred by the bride's family and Mrs. N.
Sasikala.

9) Expenditure on vegetables, Milk etc for marriage
were met by the bride's family and for the reception by
Mrs. N. Sasikala.

10) The following is the sum incurred by me on
accommodation for invitees:

Park Sheraton.... Rs.1,75,246-2 (By cheque No.597108
drawn on Canara Bank, Mylapore)

11) Expenditure incurred by me on car hire charges
paid through by canara bank account amounted
toRs.78,430/- as per details given below:

i) Anchor Cabs, Madras-35 Rs.19,211 (Ch.
No.597115)

ii) AGK Travels, Madras-8 Rs.15,814 (Ch.
No.597116)

iii) Govind Cabs, Madras-34 Rs.15,903 (Ch.
No.597117)

iv) Vincent Travels, Madras-10 Rs.27,502 (Ch.

No.597118)

------------

Total Rs.78,430
------------
12) Jewellery Marriage
13) Expenditure on the dresses, clothes and other
textiles items for the marriage amounted to

Rs.4,84,712/- paid to Kumaran Silks, Madras-17 by my
canara Bank cheque No.090993.

14) Expenses on Video Coverage etc., were incurred by
the bride's family and Mrs. N Sasikala. The Photograph
expenses from my side amounted to Rs.54,660/- and
paid to Balu's colour labs, Madras-4 by cheque
No.597114 drawn on Canara Bank, Mylapore.
15) Expenses relating to the horse-drawn carriage used
at the time of Mappillai Azhaippu were incurred by the
bride's family.

16) Expenses on fireworks and crackers were met by
the bride's family and my AIADMK party men.

17)

18) There was no purchase of any furniture for the
marriage. The furniture hire charges for the marriage
were borne by the bride's family. The furniture hire
charges for the reception on the 10th September
amounted to Rs.57,250/- and were paid by me to Giri's
Museum, Madras by cheque No.597109 drawn on
Canara Bank, Mylapore.

19)

20)

21) I have not received any gifts on the occasion of the
marriage of my foster son.

22) The other items of expenditure incurred by me
through my account with Canara Bank, Mylapore in
connection with the marriage are:

i) Pandal for the reception Rs.75,000/- paid to
Mr. Kumaresan Nadar by cheque No.597110 on Canara
Bank, Mylapore.

ii) Interior Decorations on the 10th September, 1995

a) Serial lighting Rs.25,000/- paid to Mr. Chadrasekaran by
cheque No.597111 on Canara Bank, Mylapore.

b) Labour paid to Mr. Punindra Pal of Ahmedabad
Rs.1,00,000/- vide cheque No.597106 on Canara Bank,
Mylapore.

iii) For the pandal at the entrance of my residence a sum of
Rs. 27,256/- was paid to Mr. Kumaresan Nadar by
cheque No.597113 on Canara Bank, Mylapore.

iv) Thanks advertisement in Daily Thanti through Rock
Aads. Madras-14, Rs.2,47,616/- paid by cheque
No.597104 on Canara Bank, Mylapore.
v) Towards rent and amenities for film city, the reception
Avenue, a sum of Rs.49,500/- was paid to Tamil Nadu
Film Corporation, Ltd., Madras-600 113 by cheque
No.597101 drawn on Canara Bank, Mylapore.

vi) Towards rice in respect of food for reception, a sum of
Rs.23,800/- was paid to M. Abbas, Vikravandi-605652
vide cheque No.597112 drawn on Canara Bank,
Mylapore. The other expenses relating to the reception
were met by Mrs. N Sasikala.

23) Expenses in connection with simple betrothal function
held in June 1995 at the residence of Dr. Sivaji Ganesan
were met by the Bride's family. The following gifts to the
bride were made by me:

1) Jewellery (details) Rs.
2) Silk Sarees (details) Rs.
I hope that the above is in order.

Yours faithfully,

(DR. J. JAYALALITHA)

The computation of the marriage expenditure items
are as under:

Printing of invitations, identity cards, 12,00,050.00
car passes and printed polythene
bags
Distribution Expenses 2,45,000.00
Provision of food and refreshment 23,800.00
Accommodation for the invitees 1,75,246.00
Car hire charges 78,430.00
Dresses, clothes and other textile
items for the marriage 4,84,712.00
Photograph expenses 54,660.00
Furniture hire charges 57,250.00
Pandal for the reception 75,000.00
Serial lighting 25,000.00
Labour charges 1,00,000.00
Pandal at the entrance of the 27,256.00
residence
Thanks Advertisements 2,47,616.00
Rent and amenities for the Film City 49,500.00
Rice in respect of food for reception 23,800.00
Total 28,67,520.00

PW.237 - S.S.Jawahar was working as Assistant

Secretary to the Chief Minister. Accused Nos. 2 and 3

were staying in Chief Minister's House. Mr. Sudhakaran's

marriage took place in the year 1995. Grand daughter of

Shivaji Ganeshan was engaged to get married to him.

Marriage reception, musical concerts of Mandolin Srinivas

and A.R. Rahman was conducted. Moulis Agencies

Company printed the wedding invitations. He pasted the

slip of address of 400 VIPs on the invitations who were

Chief Ministers of many States. Many cooks came from

Thanjavur to cook food for the marriage. He has seen 4th

Accused Ilavarasi in poes garden.

In respect of Marriage Expenses, the following

defence witnesses were examined, they speak as under:

DW.1 - Ramkumar has deposed that his father's

name is Shivaji Ganesan. The third Accused is his elder

sister Shanthi's Son-in-law. On 7.9.1995, his elder sister
daughter Sathyalakshmi married to the third Accused in

MRC Nagar, Chennai. His father-in-law was alive. They

met the entire expenses of the marriage as they are

bride's family. For that marriage, they opened an account

in SB A/c. No.95071 in Gopalapuram Branch, State Bank

of India and remitted upto Rs.92 lakhs which was spent on

wedding expenses. Ex.P15 is Photostat copy of the

savings bank account pass book.

During his cross examination, he states that during

his sister's daughter marriage, he lived with his father. SB

Account was opened on 14.8.95. The account details do

not disclose that the amounts were spent for the marriage.

His elder sister Shanthi's husband name is

Narayanaswamy. He was working as a Professor in IIT,

Chennai. During investigation he gave details relating to

the marriage expenses.

DW.21 - S. Selvamhas deposed that in connection

with marriage of Accused No.3, they collected Rs.50,000/-

and spent the same on banners, decoration, flags and arch

for the procession. He has given written explanation to

the Income Tax Department. Rs.50,000/- includes his

contribution and also contribution made by others.
DW.22 - R. Ramalingam has deposed that in

connection with the marriage, they made arrangement for

decoration of the procession route in their area and for

that he collected collection to the tune of Rs.1.50 lakhs

and handed over the same to K.R.V.Ramani of Milapur

Constituency of AIADMK. Income tax Officer enquired

him.

DW.23 - C.N. Swamy has deposed that they

collected Rs.15,000/- from each area for the purpose of

marriage of Accused No.3. He contributed Rs.10,000/- for

the above purpose and remaining Rs.15,000/- was

collected in his area. They all spent about Rs.70,000/-

towards crackers and music band. He collected a cheque

for the said amount from DW.1 - Ramkumar.

DW.24 - Thotta Tharani has deposed that he is a

painter and Art Director for films. AIADMK party persons

approached him for designing the façade of marriage hall

entrance. He knew Shivaji Ganesan's family from his

childhood. Hence he agreed to design the façade of the

marriage on the entrance. He made a sketch in this

connection. He was not involved in execution of the above
façade designed by him. He entrusted the work to one of

his Assistants by name Ramesh. He did not take any

remuneration for the said art designing. He gave

explanation before the Income Tax Department.

DW.25 - K. Thangamuthu was a Member of AIADMK

Party. In 1995, he was the District Secretary of

Thanjavur, District Unit of AIADMK Party. He has deposed

that he along with others arranged procuring rice and

vegetables. He arranged two cooks. Plantation leaves

grown in his land were supplied for the above occasion.

Subramanyam, Paramashivam and Dandayudapani were

three others involved in procuring rice and vegetables.

Jayaraman and Shankar are the two cooks who prepared

food items. He paid Rs.17,000/- each. He has given

statement before the Income Tax Officer. Breakfast was

arranged by the bride's side.

DW.26 - Kanchi Pannerselvam has deposed that

they were told marriage pandal would be put up by bride

side. They decided to put the façade of the marriage

pandal. The actual cost of execution of the package is
Rs.57,02,050/-. He gave list of persons who contributed

money for execution of the work.

DW.27 - Rathinavel has deposed that he along with

11 others arranged the facade of marriage pandal. Work

was done by Ramesh. He paid Rs.5 lakhs. Said amount

was collected from party workers in the District. He

prepared list of persons who contributed money for the

above works along with their names and addresses. The

above work relating to façade marriage pandal was done

by him and others voluntarily.

DW.28 - Pandurangan has deposed that about 12 of

them went to their respective Districts and collected

money from party workers. It amounted to Rs.5 lakhs and

they contributed to the same for the work of façade of

marriage pandal.

DW.29 - Muttumani has deposed that 12 persons

decided to contribute Rs.5 lakhs of the various labour

unions of Transport Corporations and selected ten Unions

and intimated about the decision of putting up facade of

marriage pandal. He requested Rs.50,000/- each for the

above purpose thereby Rs.5 lakhs was collected by the
above Unions and said amount was handed over to Kanchi

Panner Selvam who in turn gave it to Ramesh for

execution of the work. The Union collected voluntary

contributions of their Members. Income tax officials issued

notice. 12 persons prepared a joint petition and submitted

to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. No one asked

them to do the work relating to the facade of the marriage

pandal and they did that voluntarily.

DW.30 - K.P. Raju speaks about contribution made

towards marriage of Accused No.3. He has deposed that

they wanted to do something for marriage of Accused

No.3. They wanted to put up a pandal for the marriage.

When they verified, they were told that the marriage

pandal will be put up by bride's party. Thereafter, 12 of

them decided to put the façade for the said marriage

pandal and collected Rs.5 lakhs by way of contribution and

gave that money to Kanchi Paneer Selvam. Nobody has

asked them to put up façade for the pandal and they did

that on their own.

DW.41 -K.Seetharaman has deposed that he is a

member of AIADMK Party since 1980-1981. He was a
treasurer for Mylapur Area of AIADMK Party. They came to

know that A1 attended the marriage of A3-V.N.

Sudhakaran. They made decorations for the procession

route. He along with other office bearers collected about

Rs.50,000/- and handed it over to K.R.V. Ramani, who was

the AIADMK Party's Area Secretary for Mylapur Area in

Chennai. He personally contributed Rs.5,000/-. MRC Nagar

is situated within Mylapur Area in Chennai.

During the cross-examination, he has stated that

they did not prepare the list of contributors. They did not

issue the receipts to the contributors for the amounts

collected from them. He does not remember the number of

persons who made the contributions to the tune of

Rs.50,000/-. The said collections made were handed over

to K.R.V. Ramani about 15 to 20 days prior to the

marriage of A3.

DW.42 - P.S. Annamalai has deposed that he is a

member of AIADMK Party which was formed in the year

1972 by late M.G. Ramachandran. He agreed to collect

Rs.2,00,000/- towards arrangements to be made to

receive A1 on the occasion of the above marriage in that
area. The procession was decorated in that area. In this

connection, he received a Notice from Income Tax

Department enquiring him about the said Rs.2,00,000/-.

He sent reply to that notice. Nobody asked them to make

the above arrangements. As a member holding responsible

position in the party, he felt that it was his duty to make

such arrangements during visits by A1. He did not prepare

the list of contributors from whom contributions were

collected by him. He did not issue any receipts to those

contributors.

DW.43 -V. Kothandaraman has deposed that MRC

Nagar is situated in Mylapur Legislative Constituency. KRV

Ramani was the AIADMK's Party's Secretary for Mylapur

Constituency. The secretary of the above area was

responsible to oversee the decoration arrangements. It

was customary to make collections and hand over the

amount to the concerned area secretary. They collected

Rs.1,00,000/- from the party workers, members and the

office bearers of the Annanagar Area and handed over the

same to KRV Ramani. Income Tax department has issued

the notice. He has submitted reply to that notice.
DW.77-K.R.V Ramani, Secretary for AIADMK Party of

Mylapur Legislative constituency, made arrangements for

the public procession in connection with the marriage of A-

3 - V.N.Sudhakaran. Various constituencies' secretaries of

party made contribution to the tune of Rs.15,10,000/-.

The Income Tax Authority issued notice as per Ex.D136

and he gave reply to the notice as per Ex.D137. He

collected the contribution in connection with the marriage.

PW.181 - Thangarajan, Assistant Engineer, Building

Construction-3, Sub-division-II, Chennai, has estimated

the expenses incurred at the wedding and reception. The

Architect - Vijayshankar has furnished the drawing of

choultry. He has deposed that as per Ex.P1019, expenses

for the pillar, colour lights, stages, decorative arches

erected during reception at film city and wedding at MRC

Nagar amounted to Rs.3,65,00,000/-. The total estimate

was calculated at Rs.5,91,000/- which does not include

meals, tiffin, dinner of the pre-wedding day, drinking

water, crackers, tonga, elephant, horse, chariot, video,

TV's folk dance, Bharatanatyam, Music performance.
In his cross-examination, he states that he prepared

the estimate based on sketch. Nobody has sent him an

invitation for the wedding. He has not attended the

wedding. This witness has clearly stated in his evidence

that he has not personally seen or observed the wedding.

Second hand evidence is excluded owing to its infirmity as

compared with its original source. Atleast to corroborate

his evidence, no eye witness or the person who have

attended the marriage have been examined. No priest,

who performed the marriage have been examined. The

contractor or the person, who installed the pandal have

not been examined. Normally, the person who saw or

heard is the proper person to explain about the installation

of pandals, platforms etc. As stated earlier, no such

persons have been examined.

PW.189 - Mahalingam states that he has sent

invitations of about 56,000 and he has received the cost of

Rs.2,24,000/- from PW.237 - Jawahar. PW.191 -

Srinivasan has deposed that he declined to take money for

the music concert. PW.196 - Aijaz Ahamed has deposed

that he stitched the apparels of V.N.Sudhakaran and has

received a sum of Rs.1,41,025/- from DW.1 - Ramkumar
for stitching charges. PW.200 - K.P.Muthuswamy, Retired

Chief Engineer has deposed that Vijayashankar, Architect

furnished him a plan for pandal and stage arrangements.

Contractors carried-out the work. Bride's father

Mr.Narayanaswamy gave him a total sum of

Rs.16,00,000/-. DW.1 gave Rs.3,00,000/- to Gopinath,

Rs.1,75,000/- to Pauldasan and Rs.10,000/- to

K.V.Natarajan. PW.214 - A.R.Rahman has deposed that

he has performed music programme without charging any

amount. PW.224 - Thyagaraja Swami has deposed that

he cooked food for VIPs during marriage. A person from

Shivaji Films gave Rs.11,850/- towards cooking charges.

PW.228 - Rajasekaran speaks about expenditure of

marriage. The Income-tax department has sent a

questionnaire to A-1 - Selvi Jayalalitha. She replied for

the same. According to her computation towards marriage,

she has stated in her reply that she has spent about

Rs.28,67,520/-. PW.237 - Jawahar was the Assistant

Secretary to Chief Minister has deposed that Mouli's

Agencies printed the wedding invitation card. He has sent

400 invitation cards to VIPs. Many cooks came from

Tanjavur to cook the food for the marriage.
DW.1 - Ramkumar, Son of Shivaji Ganesan has

deposed that he has remitted about Rs.92,00,000/-

towards wedding expenses. DW.21 - S.Selvam gave

explanation to the Income-tax department stating that

Rs.50,000/- was collected and spent on banners,

decoration, flags and arches. DW.22 - R. Ramalingam has

deposed that he has collected Rs.1,50,000/- and handed

over to K.R.V.Ramani. DW.23 - C.N.Swamy has deposed

that he contributed about Rs.10,000/- for wedding and

they all spent about Rs.70,000/- towards crackers and

music band. DW.24 - Thotta Tharani, Art Director for

films has deposed that he has designed the façade of

marriage and did not take any remuneration. DW.25 -

K.Thangamuthu has deposed that he has procured rice and

vegetables and arranged cooks. Plantation leave grown in

his land were used for the wedding. He paid Rs.17,000/-.

Breakfast was arranged by bride's side. DW.26 - Kanchi

Pannerselvam has deposed that marriage pandal was

installed by bride's side. DW.27 - Rathinavel has deposed

that amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was collected from party

workers to install façade of marriage. DW.28 -

Pandurangan has deposed that he has collected a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- from 12 persons for the marriage purpose.

DW.29 - Muttumani has deposed that he has collected a

sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from 12 persons of the Labour Union

of Transport Corporation. 12 persons gave joint petition to

the Deputy Commissioner, Income-tax. They have done

this voluntarily. DW.30 - K.P.Raju has deposed that he

has contributed Rs.12,00,000/- after collecting the same

from 12 different persons. DW.41 - K.Seetharaman,

Treasurer for Mylapur Area of AIADMK Party, has deposed

that he himself and other office bearers have collected

Rs.50,000/- and handed over the K.R.V.Ramani and Party

Area Secretary for Mylapur. Similarly, DW.42 -

P.S.Annamalai, DW.43 - V.Kothandaraman and DW.77 -

K.R.V.Ramani have deposed that they all are members of

All India Anna DMK Party and they were contributed

money to the expenses of the marriage of A-3 -

V.N.Sudhakaran.

Accused No.1 was a Chief Minister of Tamilnadu.

When marriage of A-3 was performed, she was also the

General Secretary of All India Anna DMK Party. Her role

was in dual capacity. Bride was none other than the grand

daughter of the famous Cine Actor Shivaji Ganesan. DW.1
- Ramkumar has stated in his evidence that he has spent

about Rs.92,00,000/- for the performance of the marriage.

He was also produced the extract of SB Account No.95071,

State Bank of India, Gopalpuram Branch. The material

witness - the father of the bride, Narayanaswamy has not

been examined. He was a proper person to speak about

the marriage expenses of his daughter. The prosecution

has not been examined him. No plausible explanation is

forthcoming as to why he was not examined. He was

working as a Professor in Indian Institute of Technology,

Chennai. The material evidence has been withheld by the

prosecution. The prosecution's case is that accused No.1

has spent all the expenses pertaining to marriage. The

version of accused No.1 is that she has spent about

Rs.28,67,520/- for the marriage. It is a customary

practice that normally expenses of the marriage will be

borne by the bride's family. Even the bride's family are

also financially sound. The expenditure relating to

marriage will be of both verifiable expenditure and non-

verifiable expenditure. Verifiable expenditure can be

ascertained by investigation. It is difficult to ascertain

non-verifiable expenditure. In this case, the bride's family
have stated that they incurred expenditure pertaining to

marriage. A-1 was a General Secretary of AIADMK Party.

There is a positive evidence that members of the All India

Anna DMK Party also made some arrangements for the

marriage and they themselves have claimed that they

have spent some amount towards the marriage,

voluntarily. In the absence of the evidence of the bride's

father, A-1 has furnished a statement before the Income-

tax department to their questionnaire stating that she has

spent Rs.28,67,520/- towards the marriage, party workers

spending some amount towards marriage, I am of the

opinion that the liability of the marriage of A-3 by A-1 to

A-4 is to the extent of Rs.28,68,000/-.

Learned Special Public Prosecutor, Sri. B.V. Acharya,

in his written arguments has mentioned that Accused Nos.

1 to 4, firms have acquired about 306 properties.

Evidence, material placed on record disclose that the value

of the properties range from Rupees Ten Thousand to

Lakhs. But, Accused Nos. 1 to 4, firms and companies

have borrowed loan more than Rs.24 Crores. This loan

has been utilized for acquiring the immovable properties,

namely, agricultural lands, sites etc. Borrowing loan from
the Nationalized Banks and acquiring the properties is not

an unlawful activity.

The Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption has

inflated the value of assets to the extent of Rs.91,34,568/-

Since these assets have been inflated by the Director of

Vigilance and Anti Corruption, some of the items left out

while valuing the construction will be adjusted.

Learned Special Public Prosecutor, Sri. B.V. Acharya,

submits that the sole prosecuting agency is State of

Karnataka in the appeals and the prosecutor validly

appointed by the State of Karnataka has to be heard. In

the present appeals, State of Karnataka which is a sole

prosecuting agency has not been made as a party.

Though this appeal was heard for nearly more than

four months, inspite of it, the Government of Karnataka

has not taken steps either to appoint Special Public

Prosecutor even though the State of Karnataka was a

transferee court. This case arises out of private complaint

and subsequently even Director of Vigilance and Anti

Corruption registered a crime in Tamil Nadu during the

course of the trial which was conducted in Tamil Nadu. At
that stage, this matter was transferred from the High

Court judicature of Madras to the High Court of Karnataka

so that trial of the case may be conducted fairly. Since

this criminal case was transferred from Tamil Nadu, the

transferee State is the party. That being the case, as soon

as criminal case was disposed of by the learned Special

Judge, criminal appeals were preferred by the Accused

before this Court. At that time, only State of Karnataka

should have been diligent in appointing Special Public

Prosecutor, but it has not done so. Even at the stage of

hearing of the appeal for nearly four months, State of

Karnataka has not taken steps to appoint Special Public

Prosecutor to conduct the proceedings. On the other

hand, contention of the State of Karnataka is that they are

not made as parties. There was an observation by this

Court for the appearance of the learned Advocate General.

Accordingly, he appeared before the Court and made

submission that he will give accommodation to the Special

Public Prosecutor Sri.Bhavani Singh. Even during that

time, the learned Advocate General did not mention about

the accused not making Government of Karnataka as a

party. On the other hand, Sri.B.V.Acharya, learned Special
Public Prosecutor has urged the contention that the appeal

is not maintainable, since the Government of Karnataka is

not made as a party. When the State of Karnataka is

aware of hearing of these appeals and daily media reports

about this case, pleading ignorance by the State of

Karnataka and taking up contention that it is not

maintainable is not sustainable. Besides, it is a curable

irregularity which can be cured at any stage. In that view

of the matter, contention of learned Special Public

Prosecutor that the appeals are not maintainable has no

force and cannot be accepted.

One of the contentions raised by learned Special

Public Prosecutor is with regard to criminal conspiracy and

acquisition of assets. In this regard, prosecution relies on

evidence of PW.94 - R.Lakshminarayanan who speaks

about registration of firms and companies and PW.159-

Rajagopalan who speaks about registration of documents

at the residence of Accused No.1 at Chennai. According to

the prosecution, this part of the case has been satisfactory

established by leading clinching substantial evidence.
It is not prudent to expect direct evidence in this

aspect and the same is only by way of substantial

evidence. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were residing together at

Poes Garden. No doubt, it is the contention of learned

Special Public Prosecutor that since the registration was

done at the residence of Accused No.1 and Accused Nos. 1

to 4 were residing together in the same residential

premises, registration of documents at the residence is not

illegal. Contention at paragraph-20 of the written

arguments indicates more than Rs.20 Crores have been

paid towards price of these properties is not borne out

from the records or evidence. Contention of learned

Senior Counsel that more than Rs.20 Crores immovable

properties have been purchased and sale deeds has been

executed has no force since it is the borne out from the

records that total amount mentioned in the sale deeds is

about Rs.6,24,09,120/-. Therefore, there is no force in the

contention of learned Senior Counsel.

In so far as marriage expenses are concerned,

learned Senior Counsel supports the impugned Judgment

and submits that the trial court has validly reduced the

expenses to the extent of Rs.3 Crores.
This court after examining evidence and also

documents has come to the conclusion that Accused No.1

cannot be saddled with the entire marriage expenses. As

stated earlier, according to Hindu Customs, it is bride's

father and their family members who perform the marriage

and they bear the marriage expenses. Besides, there will

be non verifiable expenditure. Such being the case, it is

difficult to accept submission of learned Senior Counsel in

this aspect.

Though it is contended by learned Senior Counsel

that income of Accused is Rs.9,34,26,053.56/-, but from

the evidence available and material on record, it is crystal

clear that Accused Nos. 1 to 4, firms and companies have

borrowed loans to the tune of Rs.24,17,31,274/-. Such

being the case, this amount has lost sight of by the

prosecution. The Investigating Agency has also not

investigated in this regard. It appears that the

Investigating Agency has deliberately omitted to

investigate in this aspect and narrate the same in the

police papers. Therefore, the contention of learned Senior

Counsel for the State with regard to the income of the

Accused has no force and the same cannot be accepted.
The written arguments filed by third party Intervenor

only relies upon evidence of the prosecution witnesses and

also supports the impugned Judgment of the Trial Court

and also they have given tabular form with regard to

additional construction and they point out certain

irregularities while registering the documents and also

under valuation. This aspect will be taken care of by the

concerned authorities under the law relating to this rather

than the provision of offence of criminal misconduct. This

irregularity or discrepancy cannot lend support to the

offence of criminal misconduct envisaged under
section
[1][e] of the
Prevention of Corruption Act
.

Sri.B.V.Acharya, learned Special Public Prosecutor

relied on PW.159, who speaks about the registration of 90

documents. The consideration amount of these sale deeds

works out approximately to Rs.3,20,72,380/-. No doubt,

the Sub-Registrar - PW.159 has visited the house of A-1

for registering the properties nearly 20-25 times. Just

because, PW.159 visits the house of A-1 in connection with

registering the properties, that itself is not a material to

bring home the guilt of the accused. Law permits the Sub-

Registrar to visit the residential houses to register the
documents. Even if there is an undervaluation, the

concerned department has to take action under the law

relating to undervaluation. Even if there is non-compliance

of
Income Tax Act
of furnishing Tax Clearance Certificate,

the concerned Income Tax Authorities will initiate action

against the concerned. These things cannot be taken into

consideration for bringing home of the offence of criminal

misconduct. In this case, there is a positive evidence to

the effect that Rs.24,17,31,274/- has been borrowed loans

from the Nationalised Banks by A-1 to A-4, Firms and

Companies. This is a lawful source of income. From the

evidence on record, it reveals that this amount has been

utilized for acquiring the immovable properties. There is

no evidence to show that ill-gotten wealth of A-1 has been

parted to A-2 to A-4, Firms and Companies to acquire

these immovable properties. The prosecution has not

shown the loan borrowed by accused Nos.1 to 4, Firms and

Companies. Therefore, the prosecution has not established

the offence of abetment and criminal conspiracy.

LOANS AS INCOME

PW.259 has positively stated in his evidence that

accused Nos.1 to 4 and firms and companies have
borrowed huge loans. Even I have carefully examined the

documents and it is found that evidence of one PW.182 -

Arunachalam reveals that Accused Nos. 1 to 4 and firms

and have borrowed Rs.7,35,46,000/-. Besides, Accused

have also borrowed loan from private parties. Those loans

have not been taken into consideration. Ex.D196 discloses

that Indian Bank has granted loan of Rs.84,07,172/-. The

assessee advanced loan of Rs.58,66,500/-. The following

are loans availed from Accused and firms and companies.

Accused No.3 - Rs. 29,98,500
J. Farm House - Rs. 6,00,000
Meadow Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd., - Rs. 2,00,000

Sasi Enterprises - Rs. 2,00,000

Bharani Beach Resorts - Rs. 41,35,000

Lex Property Development
Pvt. Ltd., from Kalyani
Constructions - Rs.1,57,00,000

Indo Doha Company was advanced loan of Rs.1 Crore from
Magantha Investments.

PW.211 - P.N. Venkatesh speaks about Rs.34 lakhs loan to

Accused No.4. PW.160 speaks about grant loan of Rs.1.50

Crores sanctioned to Jaya Publications. PW.176 speaks

about grant loan of Rs.1.50 Crores from Indian Bank to

Tansi Enterprises. PW.182 also speaks about sanction of

loan. However, I have considered the loan only borrowed
by the Nationalized Banks. The loan borrowed by the

Accused Nos. 1 to 4 and firms companies are as under:

1 Ex.P1027 OMTL-Indian Bank, Rs.1,50,00,000.00
Jaya Publications
2 Ex.P1101 Agricultural
M.D.Loan, Indian
Bank, Guna
Bhushani. On
request of Guna
Bhushani, they Rs.3,75,00,000.00
changed the loan
liability to A2, A3
and A4 since they
became the share
holders.

3 Ex.P1114 Indian Bank- A1 Rs. 90,00,000.00
4 Ex.P1162 Indian Bank J.Real Rs. 25,00,000.00
Estate
5 Ex.P1172 Indian Bank Rs. 12,46,000.00
J.S.Housing
6 Ex.P1211 Indian Bank, J farm Rs. 50,00,000.00
house
7 Ex.P1260 Indian Bank- Sasikala Rs. 25,00,000.00

8 Ex.P1330 Indian Bank- Rs.1,57,00,000.00
V.N.Sudhakaran
9 Ex.P1354 Ramaraj Agro Mill Ltd Rs.1,65,00,000.00

Ex.P1357 Indian Bank- Rs. 17,85,274.00
10 Mahalakshmi
Kalyanamandapa
Total Rs.24,17,31,274.00

Out of the loan amount of Rs.24,17,31,274/-, a sum

of Rs.5,99,85,274/- is deducted to the income assessed by

Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption. After deducting

this amount, the balance loan amount remains as

Rs.18,17,46,000/-.
INCOME FROM GRAPE GARDEN:

In so far as the income from the Grape Garden is

concerned, no doubt Income tax returns have been filed

belatedly, but that itself will not be a ground to reject the

income from the Grape Garden. Even in the earlier

returns, income from the Grape Garden has been

mentioned. Though the prosecution disputes about the

income from the Grape Garden, Income Tax returns filed

by the assessee and also after a detailed enquiry by the

Income Tax Authority have come to a conclusion that there

is an income from the Grape Garden to the extent of

Rs.52,50,000/-. A portion of the income has been

included in the Annexures filed along with the charge

sheet, deducting that amount from the agricultural

income/Grape Garden is Rs.46,71,600/-.

GIFTS AS INCOME:

In so far as gift items are concerned, the Accused

No.1 has claimed that she has received a sum of

Rs.2,15,00,000/-. Accused No.1 has performed marriage

of her foster son Accused No.3 and during her birthday she

received gifts from the party workers, friends, well wishers

etc. She has also filed income tax returns to that effect
before the Income Tax Authorities. No doubt, there is

delay in submitting the income tax returns. That has been

accepted by the Income tax authorities. Besides, there

was a marriage function of foster son of Accused No.1 and

also her birthday. In Tamilnadu, there is practice of giving

gifts to political leaders on their birthdays. She has also

claimed foreign remittance of Rs.77 lakhs. Taking into

consideration all these aspects, in my view, the income

that arises from the gifts in my estimation will be around

Rs.1,50,00,000/-.

SASI ENTERPRISES

PW.113 has spoken about the rent derived from the

shops given on rent from Sasi Enterprises.

Sasi Enterprises carried out fax, Xerox, STD, printing

of building plan works. Ex.D258 is attested copy of lease

agreement dated 1.9.1991 between Sasi Enterprises and

said TSR Vasudevan.

In Ex.D261 a sum of Rs.17,91,000/- is shown as

loans and advances due to M/s. Sasi Enterprises. Ex.D261

discloses that a sum of Rs.8,20,000/- was due from one

Nagammal, a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- was due from one
Subramaniam. Sasi Enterprises leased shops bearing Nos.

9 and 20 in Khadar Nawaz Khan Road, Chennai in favour of

M/s. Info Tech Computer Centre. Ex.D263 shows

agricultural income of M/s. Sasi Enterprises of

Rs.5,40,700/-.

Ex.D259 is copy of certificate issued by the Tahsildar

of Villupuram to the effect that the lands mentioned

therein were held by Accused No.2 Sasikala as lessee.

Sasi Enterprises received an amount of Rs.54,000/- as

advance. Ex.D265 is attested copy of letter dated

26.12.2001 addressed by one A. Bhaskaran of

Kumbakonam to the Commissioner of Income Tax

[Appeals] to the effect that a sum of Rs.40,000/- was paid

as advance to M/s. Sasi Enterprises in respect of property

at Maharkombu, Thanjavur. The said property is house

property. Ex.D263 pertaining to M/s. Sasi Enterprises a

sum of Rs.5,40,700/- is shown as agricultural income. The

receipt of agricultural income by M/s. Sasi Enterprises

have been accepted by the Income Tax Authorities as

reflected in page 16 of the order Ex.D262. Ex.D261

pertaining to the year ending on 31.3.1991, a sum of

Rs.8,20,000/- is shown as amount due from Mrs.
Nagammal. M/s. Sasi Enterprises has received

Rs.4,50,000/- towards repayment of loan from Mrs.

Nagammal and this aspect has been accepted by IT

Authorities in the order Ex.D262. M/s. Sasi Enterprises

had filed IT returns along with balance sheet, profit and

loss account for the year ending on 31.3.93. The

Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] passed an order

dated 28.5.2002. Ex.D267 is attested copy of the Balance

Sheet along with profit and loss account of M/s. Sasi

Enterprises. In this document, a sum of Rs.2,16,850/- is

shown as agricultural income. Ex.D267 reveals that a sum

of Rs.1,48,600/- has been received as rents. Ex.D269 is

attested copy of the assessment order dated 19.3.1999.

Ex.D268 is acknowledgement receipt given by IT

Authorities for receipt of returns for the year 1993-94

along with statement of income and Balance Sheet. M/s.

Sasi Enterprises has shown an amount of Rs.65,000/- as

agricultural income derived out of 3 acres 23 cents of land

in R.S. No.402/2 of Sundara Kottai Village in Mannargudi

Taluk, Thanjavur District. A sum of Rs.1,41,400/- is

derived as rental income from shops and house property.

In the same document, annual income shown is
Rs.1,94,806/-. Under the Statement of income, a sum of

Rs.10,20,000/- is shown as income from capital gains, got

by sale of erstwhile TANSI Enameled wire. The Assessing

Authority has accepted the same and has issued

assessment order Ex.D269 dated 19.3.1999.

Ex.D270 is attested copy of the acknowledgement

issued by the Income Tax Department for the receipt of

returns along with statement of income, balance sheet and

profit and loss account for the year ending on 31.3.95 from

M/s. Sasi Enterprises on 20.9.97. In the said statement of

income, a sum of Rs.70,000/- is shown as agricultural

income. Net profit shown is shown as Rs.44,895/-. A sum

of Rs.1,69,600/- is shown as income from house property.

Ex.D272 is attested copy of the acknowledgement issued

by IT Authorities regarding receipt of returns along with

statement of income, balance sheet and profit and loss

statement. Statement relating to income of the year 1996-

97 includes a sum of Rs.80,000/- as agricultural income.

Gross rental income received is shown as Rs.7,06,200/-. In

the same statement of income, a sum of Rs.10 lakhs is

shown as loan received by the assessee from Housing Real

Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd.,. Ex.D274 is letter of
confirmation of accounts issued to Sasi Enterprises by

Housing Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd., for the period

1.4.97 to 31.3.98. In this document, amount due was

Rs.10 lakhs. In the above statement, a sum of Rs.6 lakhs

is shown as income received by way of sale proceeds of

building materials pertaining to Industrial Estate, Guindy.

In the balance sheet pertaining to Ex.D272, under the

head 'unsecured loans', a sum of Rs.2 lakhs is shown as

received from Lex Property Development Pvt. Ltd.,.

DW.88 states that he has independently done

internal auditing work in respect of M/s. Sasi Enterprises,

M/s. Anjaneya Printers and also Accused No.2 - Sasikala.

The Village Assistant of Poyapakkam has deposed

that the alleged lease hold lands were not leased to

anybody else but were cultivated by T.S.R. Vasudevan and

his family. M/s. Sasi Enterprises was cultivating groundnut

in 3 acres of land and vegetables and watermelon as main

crops in 27.34 acres land. He has seen the original lease

agreement dated. 1.9.91 between T.S.R. Vasudevan and

M/s. Sasi Enterprises. But, original lease agreement was

not available with him.
In the Balance Sheet at Ex.D263, for the year ending

31.3.92 of M/s. Sasi Enterprises the amount of

Rs.5,40,700/- received by way of agricultural income is

shown under the head 'liability'. In Ex.D267, balance

sheet of M/s. Sasi Enterprises for the year ending 31.3.93,

a sum of Rs.2,16,850/- is shown to have been received by

way of agricultural income by the said firm. At the end of

the year 1993, the amount of Rs.8,20,000/- which has

been advanced to Nagammal had been repaid. The nature

of business carried on by the Assessee M/s. Sasi

Enterprises is mentioned as Xerox, job typing, fax, copier

services. In. Ex. D268, a sum of Rs.10 lakhs is shown as

loans received from Namadhu MGR newspaper and another

amount of Rs.4 lakhs is shown as loan received from Vinod

Video Vision. In Ex.D270 it is mentioned that an amount

of Rs.23,80,000/- was received by way of advance for sale

of property by M/s. Sasi Enterprises. For the year 1996-

97, Sasi Enterprises has mentioned its nature of business

as Xerox, job typing, fax, copier services, trade service

and mercantile export. In the receipt and payment

account for the year ending 31.3.96, a sum of

Rs.34,42,000/- is shown as loans received by M/s. Sasi
Enterprises from the persons mentioned therein. Taking

into consideration of evidence and material placed on

record, income of M/s. Sasi Enterprises can be assessed at

Rs.25,00,000/-.

JAYA PUBLICATIONS:

Jaya Publications carries on printing text books,

publishing and also dealing with properties. It has filed the

Income Tax returns as under:

INCOME STATEMENT OF JAYA PUBLICATIONS

Sl. Ass. Yr. Exhibits Printing, Amount
No. Publishing & [inRs.]
dealing
properties
1 1991-92 Ex.D218 Income tax 6,99,350
returns
2 1992-93 Ex.D219 Income tax 16,89,680
returns
3 1993-94 Ex.D220 Income tax 14,65,660
returns
4 1994-95 Ex.D221 Income tax 1,45,34,628
returns
5 1995-96 Ex.D222 Income tax 2,34,66,583
returns
TOTAL 4,18,55,901

The above Income Tax returns were accepted.

NAMADHU MGR:

Namadhu MGR relates to the subscription to receive

a periodical or service regularly or order i.e. to subscribe
to a newspaper to purchase future issues of periodical, list

of contributors, an agreement to take and pay for such

periodicals, books containing names of subscription with

the amount of this subscription. When you subscribe,

there will be some discounts. The subscription schemes

are set-up for raising money. The payment or promise of

payment for consecutive issues of magazine, newspaper,

books etc. over a specified period of time.

Namadhu MGR is one of the components of the Jaya

Publications. In this background, Namadhu MGR scheme

was introduced in the year 1990, to improve the circulation

of newspaper i.e. Subscription Deposit Scheme. This is

one of component of Jaya Publications.

DW.88 - K.Soundravelan, Chartered Accountant

speaks about this scheme. He has deposed that there was

an option of depositing an amount ranging from

Rs.12,000/- - Rs.15,000/- - Rs.18,000/-. There were

about 9,000 subscribers. Depending upon the amount of

deposit of the subscribers, they will get 4, 5 or 6 free

copies of newspaper every day. The concerned subscriber

could get the deposit amount by giving 15 days prior

notice. There was a scrutiny of the account of the
assessee - Jaya Publication for the years 1991 to 1996.

I.T. authorities had required the assessee to produce the

list of the subscribers of the above mentioned deposit

scheme. The said lists were produced by the assessee.

I.T. authorities segregated the names of the assessees

district wise and sent the district wise list to the respective

district I.T. authorities for verification. In turn, the

respective Income Tax Officers of the District summoned

the subscribers and recorded their statements.

DW.88 has deposed that the accused have produced

list of subscribers of deposit with their names and address

and also the amounts subscribed for the assessment years

1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97.

The said list comprises of six books and they are at

Ex.D229(1) to Ex.D229(6). The assessing officer did not

accept the returns filed by the accused. Feeling aggrieved

by the same, the accused - assessee preferred appeals

before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Central -

II in I.T. Appeal No.144/2001-02. The Appellate Authority

accepted the case of the assessee regarding the scheme

deposit collection as per Ex.D232 - Order, dated

28.3.2002. This Ex.D232 relates to the Assessment year
1991-92. Similarly, Assessing Officer rejected the claim of

the assessee, against that order, the assessee preferred

I.T. Appeal No.142/2001-02 before the Commissioner of

Income Tax Appeal, Circle-II. Similarly, Assessment

Officer rejected the returns of the assessee of the

assessment years 1994-95 to 1996-97. The Assessing

Officer partially allowed the claim made by the assessee in

respect of the Deposit Scheme. Feeling aggrieved by the

partial allowance of the claim in respect of Deposit

Scheme, appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of

Income Tax Appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeal partially accepted the claim of the assessee. As

against this order, further appeal was preferred before the

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - B Bench. The Appellate

Tribunal passed common order accepting the claim of the

assessee regarding the Deposit Scheme except in respect

of 41 depositors. The total amount received by Jaya

Publication under the above Deposit Scheme from its

subscribers is Rs.14,23,89,000/-. 16,000 copies of

newspapers per day were printed in the year 1998.

30,000 copies of newspapers per day were printed in the

year 1990. 60,000 copies of newspapers per day were
printed in the year 1995-96. 70,000 copies of newspapers

per day were printed in the year 1996-97.

During the cross-examination of DW.88, he states

that A-1 and A-2 became partners of M/s. Jaya Publication

in the year 1990. A-2 was looking after the affairs of said

firms. In between 1990 and 1992, A-1 executed the

power of attorney dated 21.5.1992 in favour A-2 for

looking after the business of Jaya Publications on her

behalf. Jaya Publications did not obtain permission for

introducing interest free Subscribers Deposit Scheme in

respect of Namadhu MGR newspaper. The said scheme

has not been registered with any authority. There is no

such requirement. He has gone through the terms and

conditions of that scheme. According to Condition No.2 of

the scheme, subscriber/deposit would receive a free copy

of Namadhu MGR newspaper, but not any interest on the

deposited amount.

DW.88 at paragraph-47 in his evidence has stated

that in the Order Ex.D217, there is no mention that

representatives of M/s. Jaya Publications produced the

books of account before the special auditors. There is an

observation in the said order that during the said special
audit to show receipts through Cash and Bank, but no

supporting documents were made available. He said that

on account of seizure of the documents of M/s.Jaya

Publications by DV & AC those documents could not be

made available before the special auditors. But in the

order Ex.D217, there is no mention that the said

documents could not be made available for the reason that

they were seized by DV & AC. There is an observation

made in the para.2 of Annexure-II to Ex.D217 that all

payments made through cash are not supported by any

outside document or evidence and that they are only

supported by internally made vouchers with payee's

signature. There is also a further observation in para.3 of

said Annexure-II that payments above Rs.500/- are not

stamped as required under
Indian Stamp Act
.

In Ex.D231 is an appeal directed against the

assessment order dated 04.05.2001 passed by the Deputy

Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - II, Chennai,

under Section 144 read with
Section 251
of the Income

Tax Act. The paragraphs 7.2 and 7.3 of the order of the

Appellate Court reads as under:
"7.2. During the course of appellate
proceedings before me, the learned counsel
submitted that there were changes in the
appointment of the authorized representatives.
Till February 1998, M/s Rajasekar & Co., CAs
were the appointed auditors for the appellant
thereafter M/s. Shanmugham and Muthu, CAs
were appointed auditors till they were replaced
by M/s S. Venkatram & Co., CAs. Because of
these frequent changes in the appointment of
auditors, the correct data, on this issue, could
not be collected and, therefore, this issue could
not be represented properly in March, 1998,
i.e., at the time of original assessment
proceedings. The learned counsel further
submitted that the Appellant has since
reconciled the list of members of the scheme
as on 31.3.1991, which consisted of 91
members from whom an aggregate amount of
Rs.13,54,000/- were collected. The complete
details and addresses of these 91 members
were already stated to have been filed before
the Assessing Officer during the re-assessment
proceedings. As regards non-mentioning of
the scheme deposit in the impounded books of
accounts, the learned Counsel contended that
the impounded books, on the basis of which
the Assessing Officer concluded this issue,
consisted only of pretty cash books of M/s Jaya
Publications and M/s NAMADHU MGR; whereas
the other records like bank which actually
reflected the transactions of scheme deposit
were not impounded. Thus, in his view, the
impounded books in question were incomplete
and consequently, the conclusion drawn on the
set of incomplete books would not be correct.

However, during the re-assessment
proceedings, the Appellant had produced the
complete books of accounts, as is evident from
the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer
himself on page 20 of the assessment order,
the relevant portion of which reads thus: In
the balance sheet filed the amount of scheme
deposit collected was claimed to be
Rs.13,54,000/-. From the verification of the
computerized bank books submitted it is seen
that the credits representing alleged scheme
deposit collection aggregate to Rs.13,11,200/-

only. No explanation was given for the
difference....' As regards non-production of

the application forms, the Learned Counsel
submitted that the application forms, counter-
foils etc., kept in a cardboard box in Tata
Sumo vehicle parked in a hotel was found
missing and a complaint was lodged in the
Police in this connection. He further submitted
that since the original applications were lost,
he produced Photostat copies of the same
before the Assessing Officer. The Learned
Counsel further contended that the Assessing
Officer had thoroughly investigated the
'scheme deposit' while finalizing the
assessments for the assessment years 1994-

95, 1996-97, 1997-98 and accepted the
'scheme' though certain disallowances were
made for the reasons stated therein.

7.3. I have carefully considered the
submissions made by the Appellant in the light
of the facts and circumstances of the case as
brought out in the assessment order. I have
also perused the list of scheme deposit as on
31.3.1991 which contained 91 names of the
subscribers and the details of dates on which
their deposits were made. I have also gone
through the bank books and the ledger folios
detailing the transactions relating to the
scheme deposit. The reasons for revising the
claim of Rs.10,87,067/- to Rs.13,54,000/-
frequent changes in the appointment of
auditors from M/s Rajasekar &Co., CAs to M/s
Shanmugam & Muthu, CAs to M/s
S.Venkataram & Co., CAs- are found to be
factually correct. Since these issues could not
be represented properly for want of details
during the original assessment proceedings,
the assessments for the assessment years
1991-92 to 1993-94 were set-aside by the
Commissioner of Income-tax (appeals) vide his
Order dated: 15.09.1998. it is well settled that
whether certain entries were made or not
made, in a particular year of account is totally
immaterial and such entries are not decisive or
conclusive of the matter(
Kedarnath Jute Mfg.
Co. Ltd.
's case (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC). It
would appear that in accordance with this
principle, the Appellant was within its rights to
revise the claim from Rs.10,87,067/- to
Rs.13,54,000/-. Further, the Learned Counsel
never disputed the Assessing Officer's
contention that the credits found in the
impounded cash books were nothing but the
sales and advertisements collection of one
daily newspaper titled 'Namadhu MGR' but, as
already observed, the transactions relating to
scheme deposit were actually entered in the
bank book, which was also produced before the
Assessing Officer, as is evident from his own
findings on page 20 of the assessment order.
At the cost of repetition, the relevant portion is
reproduced again: In the balance sheet filed
the amount of scheme deposit collected was
claimed to be Rs.13,54,000/-. From the
verification of the computerized bank books
submitted it is seen that the credits
representing alleged scheme deposit collection
aggregate to Rs.13,11,200/- only. No
explanation was given for the difference. A
careful reading of this finding shows that the
Appellant had produced the relevant books of
accounts in support of the revised claim. It is
pertinent to mention here that when the
Appellant had actually furnished letters from
417 subscribers confirming the deposits made
by them, the Assessing Officer should have
initiated further investigation process for
verifying these deposits transactions, either
through summons or through any other made
of enquiry, as was done during the proceedings
for the assessment years 1994-95, 1996-97
and 1997-98 earlier. Instead, he has chosen
to treat the entire scheme deposit as an 'after-
thought' which, in my opinion, was not a
correct approach. As a matter of fact, scheme
deposit is a common issue for all the
assessment years from 1991-92 to 1998-99,
and the appeals are pending before me for a
decision. In order to adjudicate upon this
issue, I had requisitioned the assessment
records including the confidential folders (44
Nos.) containing details of investigations made
by the Assessing Officer. In the context of
assessment year 1996-97 wherein the
Appellant had claimed to have collected
scheme deposits to the extent of
Rs.3,53,37,000/- from 2250 persons, it was
found that 41 persons had denied of having
contributed any amount towards the said
scheme. The total amount of deposits claimed
to have been collected from these 41 persons
amounted to Rs.5,33,000/- out of the total
claim of scheme deposits amounting to
Rs.3,53,37,000/. In terms of percentage, it
worked out to 1.5%. In fact, the Assessing
Officer, Shri. G. Gurusamy, assisted me in
analyzing the relevant facts. Having regard to
the facts and circumstances as brought out in
the assessment order and keeping in view the
percentage of denials to the extent of 1.5%, I
deem it appropriate to apply the same
percentage for the disallowances i.e., 1.5% on
the total claim of Rs.13,54,000/- which works
out to Rs.20,310/- or around sum of
Rs.25,000/-. The Assessing Officer is directed
to substitute Rs.25,000/- in place of
Rs.13,54,000/-. In the result, the Appellant
gets a relief of Rs.13,29,000/- (Rs.13,54,000/-
minus Rs.25,000/-)".

DW.88 also states in his evidence that in para 11.0

found in page No.25 of the Order - Ex.D233, there is an

observation that the learned counsel representing the

assessee inform the Assessing Officer vide his letter dated

23.3.2001 that original lease agreement kept in cardboard
bags in Tata-Sumo vehicle parked in a hotel was found

missing and a complaint was lodged with the police in that

connection.He cannot say as to how many of 9,000

subscription deposit of subscribers of Namadhu MGR

Subscription Deposit Scheme, has subscribed Rs.18,000/-.

If he can verify the records and count then he will be in a

position to tell the number of such depositors and this

would take considerable time. He had seen all the said

9,000 applications of the subscribers of the said scheme.

He has not put his initials on the said applications to

indicate that to he has verified each of those applications.

He denies the suggestion put to him, out of 9,000

applications, more than 5,000 applications were

incomplete. In the application bearing Serial No.144 and

Reference No.207 stated to be that of S.Mada Swamy, now

shown to him the place and signature are not visible. He

said that this is so on account of passage of time. In the

application of one J.Padmanabhan at Sl.No.109, there is a

mention of date and signature of the applicant but column

meant for mentioning the place is left blank.
NAMADHU MGR - DIVISION OF JAYA PUBLICATION

Evidence referred is DW.88 - K.Soundravelan, Chartered

Accountant.

ORDERS OF
TAX
COMMISSIONER
RETURNS
YEAR OF INCOME TAX AMOUNT
IN
(APPEALS) IN
EXHIBITS
EXHIBITS
1992-93 Ex.D218 EX.D232 68,60,000.00
1993-94 Ex.D219 Ex.D233 2,23,26,000.00
1994-95 Ex.D220 Ex.D234 2,07,75,000.00
1995-96 Ex.D221 Ex.D234 5,57,37,000.00
1996-97 Ex.D225 - 3,53,37,000.00
TOTAL 14,10,35,000.00
Less: 1.5% ordered by the 21,15,525.00
Commissioner of Income-Tax
(Appeals)
As accepted by the Commissioner 13,89,19,475.00
of Income-Tax (Appeals)

As against this, the matter was taken to the High

Court of Madras, the same is under the judicial

consideration.

In so far as the income of the Namadhu MGR - a

component of the Jaya Publications is concerned, there is a

positive evidence to the effect that Income Tax returns

have been filed very belatedly. No plausible explanation is

forthcoming from the assessee as to why there is delay in

filing returns. Under the Tax Laws, the burden is on the

assessee to explain the true nature and source of the
income. The assessee has to prove that a particular

income has its origin in the capital amount. Where

remittances were made from non-taxable territory and the

Income Tax Department established the source, the

presumption that remittances are out of accumulated

profits arises. Regarding the question as to where from

remittances are made being a matter within the special

knowledge of the assessee, he has to prove that those

remittances are from source other than accumulated

profits. When the assessee fails to explain the nature of

cash credit entry, the income tax officer may presume that

it falls under income from other sources. The burden of

establishing that a disputed amount is not assessee's

income lies on the assessee and not on the department.

When an assessee claims exemption he should give

detailed facts entitling him to exemption as under Section

106, when any fact is specially within the knowledge of

any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.

In this case, the Chartered Accountant - DW.88

speaks about the income of the assessee. It is undisputed

fact that A-1 and A-2 are partners of Jaya Publications.

Namadhu MGR - newspaper is one of the component of
Jaya Publications. In this case, accused Nos.1 and 2 have

not entered the witness box, even though they claim the

income from the subscription of the subscribers to the

extent of more than Rs.14 Crores. Besides, there is a

discrepancy in the evidence of DW.88. At one point of

time, assessee takes a contention that the applications

relating to deposit scheme were missing and a complaint

was lodged to that effect. Subsequently, in this case,

applications were marked, which were presented before

the Income Tax Department. As stated earlier, there is a

delay in filing the returns. It is contention of the learned

counsel for the respondents - prosecution and the General

Secretary, DMK Party that this claim is fictitious claim and

it is an afterthought.

When Income Tax returns have not been filed for

many years, it disentitles the assessee substantially. A

doubt arises in the genuineness of the Income Tax returns.

But when it is produced before the Income Tax department

after a long time and is not produced when its production

was warranted, it is a suspicious circumstance against the

genuineness of the claim of the assessee in respect of this

subscription item i.e. Namadhu MGR. However, in the
instant case, DWs.3, 4, 5, 6 , 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37,

38, 39, 40, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,

56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, speak about the deposit of

amount ranging from Rs.12,000/- to Rs.18,000/- for issue

of Namadhu MGR newspaper. They also state that they

have presented the applications before the Jaya

Publications. Taking into consideration of the evidence of

defence witnesses mentioned hereinabove, even if there is

a delay in filing the Income Tax returns, this cannot be a

factor to reject the whole claim of the assessee. The

evidence adduced by the defence will have some force.

This aspect has to be taken into consideration while

assessing the income spoken by the defence side. Jaya

Publications' activities are Printing text books, Publishing,

Real Estate and Namadhu MGR - newspapers, in my view,

a sum of Rs.4,00,00,000/- has to be taken as an income

earned by Jaya Publications.

SUPER DUPER TV PVT. LTD.:

This is also one of the subscription scheme and

supply of equipments of TV. DW.85 - R.Murali was

working as a Manager, Administration in M/s. Super Duper

TV Pvt. Ltd. during the year 1995-96. He has deposed that
this company was incorporated under the
Indian

Companies Act
, as per Ex.P617. The Memorandum of

Association and Articles of Association were marked as

Exs.P618 and P619 respectively. Ex.P682 is the Certificate

of Registration issued in favour of M/s.Super Duper TV Pvt.

Ltd. under Tamilnadu General Sale Tax Act, 1959. The

certificate is valid for the period from 7.4.1994 till March,

1996. Ex.P683 is the Certificate of Registration issued in

favour of the company under
Central Sale Tax Act
. There

were 110 subscribers of this company and also there were

agreements were executed by those subscribers.

Approximately, more than 2,300 persons got membership

as subscribers for this company. At the time of getting the

membership, each member has paid Rs.5,000/- as non-

refundable entrance fees to this company. They have

executed a separate agreement in favour of the company.

He has further deposed that M/s. Super Duper TV

Pvt. Ltd. has supplied equipments to the respective

subscribers i.e. 110 subscribers. The said subscribers has

paid Rs.1,500/- by way of hire charges. The period of

agreement was about 24 months. Some of the subscribers

have paid entrance fee by way of cash and some of them
have paid through cheques and drafts. The entrance fee of

Rs.5,000/- paid by each of those subscribers was not

refundable. The said company had Current Account

No.1152 with Indian Bank, Abhirampuram Branch,

Chennai-18. The passbooks were seized during

investigation. Ex.D157 and Ex.D158 are the passbooks

pertaining to the Current Account of M/s. Super Duper TV

Pvt. Ltd. Ex.D159 is the day book for the period from

18.4.1995 to 30.3.1996. The day book contains details of

receipts and expenditure. Ex.D160 is the entrance fee

collection book for the period from 18.4.1995 to

23.4.1996.

He has further deposed that Super Duper TV Pvt.

Ltd. has made TV coverage of the marriage of Sudhakaran,

for that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid by Ramkumar to

the Company. Prior to incorporation of Super Duper TV

Pvt. Ltd., the same business was carried under the name

and style of 'Super Duper TV'. It was managed by A-3 as

a Proprietor. Ex.D163 - Invoice book. Invoice bearing

Sl.Nos.1 and 2 dated 17.11.1994 raised in favour of

Tamilnadu Tourism Development Corporation Limited for

Rs.4,35,705/- in respect of the equipments supplied by A-
3 to the said Corporation, Trichy Branch. In the same

book, invoice Nos.3 and 4 raised in favour of

M/s.Tamilnadu Tourism Development Corporation Limited

for Rs.4,32,105/- in respect of equipments supplied by A-3

to Tanjavur Branch, TTDC. In the same book, invoice

Nos.5 and 6 dated 17.11.1994 for Rs.4,28,505/- are in

respect of the equipments supplied to Chidambaram

Branch of TTDC. The said invoices were signed by one

Kuberan, who was working as an Assistant in the Super

Duper TV Pvt. Ltd. The Photostat copy of the statement of

account pertaining to Current Account No.1104 for the

period from 12.8.1994 to 23.8.1995 is available in the un-

exhibited documentsproduced before the Court by

InvestigatingOfficer and seized during the investigation.

This document is not marked as Exhibits for the reason

that it does not bear certificate as required under Banker's

Books Evidence Act. He further deposed that in this file at

page No.11, there is a bill dated 3.4.1995 raised in the

name of Director, Information and Public Relations, Fort

Saint George, Secretariat, Madras, for the total amount of

Rs.42,00,000/- towards hiring of high brands cameras and

film cameras and towards shooting, editing and mixing
cost of raw films. Out of the said amount of

Rs.42,00,000/-, Rs.39,60,000/- was paid by way of

advance as shown in the bill as balance payable is shown

as Rs.2,40,000/-. The said bill is marked as Ex.D164. In

the same file, there is another bill dated 29.3.1995 raised

in favour of Director, Information and Public Relations for

the total amount of Rs.16,86,200/- being hire charges in

respect of closed circuit TV taken for World Tamil

conference held at Tanjavur during January, 1995. In this

bill, the total advance received is shown as Rs.10,27,000/-

The balance amount is shown as Rs.6,59,200/-. This bill is

marked as Ex.D165.

He has further deposed that Ex.D166 is the bill dated

7.2.1995 for Rs.45,000/- raised in favour of the Chairman

and Managing Director, SIDCO, Gundi, Madras towards

hire charges of C.C.TV and relay equipments. The amount

of Rs.45,000/- was received through cheque. Ex.D167 is

the bill dated 7.11.1994 for Rs.2,40,000/- raised in favour

of Tamilnadu Handloom Weavers Co. operative society

towards charges for advertisements. The amount of

Rs.2,40,000/- was received through cheque.
Ex.D168 is the bill dated 7.11.1994 for Rs.50,000/-

in favour of M/s. Nataraj Exports Corporation, T.Nagar,

Madras.

Ex.D169 is the bill dated 21.10.1994 for

Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of Tamil Nadu Film Development

Corporation.

Ex.D170 is the bill dated 3.10.1994 for

Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of M/s.SPIC Fine Chemicals Ltd.,

Madras.

Ex.D171 is the bill dated 29.09.1994 for

Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of M/s.Chettinadu Cement

Corporation Ltd.

Ex.D172 is the bill dated 29.09.1994 for

Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of M/s. Balaji Steel Corporation

Ltd., Madras.

Ex.D173 is the letter dated 29.09.1994 addressed to

Super Duper TV by Balaji Steel Corporation Ltd., enclosing

Cheque bearing No.281531 dated 28.9.1994 for

Rs.1,00,000/- towards Telecast charges.

Ex.D174 is the bill dated 12.09.1994 for Rs.10,000/-

in favour of the Manager, Min Bimangal, Mookambika

Complex, Alwarpet, Madras towards hire charges.
Ex.D176 is the letter dated 20.10.1994 addressed by

Tamil Nadu Film Development Corporation to M/s. Super

Duper TV enclosing Cheque No.485856 dated 20.11.1994

for Rs.1,50,000/-.

Ex.D177 is the letter dated 29.09.1994 addressed by

Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd. to M/s. Super Duper TV

enclosing cheques bearing Nos.047085 and 047086 dated

29.9.1994 for Rs.50,000/- each towards advertisement

charges.

During the cross-examination, he states that the

Income Tax Department had accepted the figure Rs.62.15

Lakhs shown as receipts under scheme deposit by the

assessee during the assessment year 1995-96. He also

states that the receipts of 473 persons were signed by

Kuberan. 907 persons' applications have been produced.

Ex.D121 - agreement executed by the subscriber in favour

of the Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd. contain a clause that the

entrance fees of Rs.5,000/- payable by each of subscribers

is non-refundable. The Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd. is not a

cable operator. It only supplies cable TV equipments to

the cable operator for doing their business. The Super

Duper TV Pvt. Ltd. does not telecast any channels.
The Super Duper Pvt. Ltd. collects subscription

amount, but there is a clear admission by this witness that

the company does not telecast any channels, it supplies

only TV equipments to the cable operators for doing their

business and also it does not provide set-up boxes. Taking

into consideration of the evidence of this witness and also

relying on Exs.D163, D164, D166, D168, D169, D171,

D172, D173, D174, D176, D177 and also Exs.D183, in my

view, the income of the Super Duper TV Pvt. Ltd. can be

assessed at Rs.1,00,00,000/-.

RENTAL INCOME:

It is the contention of learned Counsel for the

Appellant that the rental income has been omitted by the

prosecution i.e., Rs.3,22,000/-. This amount is added to

the income.

ASSETS:

In so far as footwear is concerned, there were four

members residing along with many servants. The

prosecution has not segregated the footwear, though

witness was examined PW.131 - Quality Controller of

Tamilnadu Leather Industries Development Corporation,

even as to when it was acquired was also not forthcoming
from the evidence. In that view of the matter, I decline to

take the value of the footwear.

In so far as the apparels of the accused Nos.1, 2 and

4 are concerned, the prosecution has examined PW.133 -

R.Chengalvarayan, Manager, (Power loom silk division) Co-

optex Regional Office. He speaks about quality and price of

silk sarees. He deposed that there were 914 silk sarees,

chudidhars, nighties altogether 6195 sets. Age of the

sarees is not mentioned. There are three women residing

at No.31, Poes Garden. The prosecution has not

segregated wearing apparels of the accused. Besides A-1

was a Cine Actress from the age of 18 years. Most of the

apparels which were used for the purpose of film shooting

were handed over to her by the Film Producers. In that

view of the matter, I decline to take the value of the

apparels.

IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES:

STATEMENT PERTAINING TO ACQUISITON OF PROPERTIES VIZ.,
AGRICULTURAL LAND AND SITES
Exs. SALE DEED SALE DEED PROPERTY VALUE IN RS.

EXECUTED BY EXECUTED IN
FAVOUR OF
Ex.P1 P.V.Rajaram Ms.J.Jayalalitha 31-A, Poes Garden 8,00,000.00
Ex.P3 S.K.Natarajan Lex Property Door No.149,
through Power Agent Development Pvt. T.T.K.Sabi, I Cross
MKN.Manikam Ltd. Street (Old No.17) 4,50,000.00
Mowbay's Road,
Chennai.
Ex.P4 S.V.S.Maniyan Jaya Publication, Rep. Thiru.Vi.ka Industrial
MD Idayam by Selvi J.Jayalitha Estate (S) S-7 bearing
Publication and Sasikala T.S.No.43 Part and 45
part Block, S.Nos.32/3 12,60,000.00
part, 32/4 part
Ex.P6 Chairman & M.D. Jaya Publication, Rep. TANSI foundry
TANSI, an by Sasikala (defunct) Thiru.Vi.Ka
undertaking of Tamil Industrial Estate
Nadu Guindy Block No.5 of 1,82,13,550.00
12462, 172 Sq.mt.
Ex.P8 TANSI, an M/s. Sasi Enterprises, TANSI Enameled wires 79,54,650.00
undertaking of Tamil Rep. by Sasikala (defunct)
Nadu Thiru.Vi.Ka
Chairman & M.D. Industrial Estate,
K.A.Mathew, IAS Guindy Chennai, Block
No.6 of 2580 Sq.mt.
Ex.P23 R.Ramachandran M/s.Sasi Enterprises, Door No.18, East
by its partner Abhiramapuram, 43,00,000.00
N.Sasikala Mylapore, Madras
Ex.P24 Janaki Srinivasan M/s.Anjaneya New Door No.21, 2,80,000.00
Printers, Rep. by Padmanabha Chetty
Chairman Street, T.Nagar,
V.N.Sudhagaran Madras-17
Ex.P25 S.Ranganathan -do- -do- 2,80,000.00
Ex.P26 Hemamalini -do- 2,80,000.00
Natarajan, Her power -do-
agent Janaki
Srinivasan
Ex.P27 S.Sriram -do- -do- 2,80,000.00
Ex.P28 K.V.M.Haripriya -do- -do- 2,80,000.00
Ex.P29 Gopal M/s.Jay Real Estate New No.5 (Old
No.16/1), Murugesa
Mudali St., T.Nagar, 29,00,000.00
Madras-17
Ex.P33 S.Sugumaran Signora Business S.No.364/7 totaling
Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 0.54 cents 16,800.00
Ex.P34 Appasamy Mudaliar S.No.364/12 totaling
and 3 others -do- 0.63 acres of land 27,720.00
Ex.P35 Gopal Gounder and 3 -do- S.No.364/3,8,9 84,400.00
others totaling 2.02 cents
Ex.P36 Thanigaimani & 9 -do- S.Nos.366/4 & 336/1
others totaling 4.90 acres 1,20,000.00
Ex.P37 E.Ellappa Naickar -do- Property at Cheyyur
3.30 acres of land 82,000.00

S.No.365/3

Ex.P38 K.Appa Samy & 3 -do- Cheyyar village 1.65
others acres S.No.365/1 41,250.00
Ex.P39 T.Radhakrishnan -do- Cheyyur Village 2.22
acres of land 56,500.00

S.No.365/2

Ex.P43 Agreement of Sale Green Farm House, No.189, Sholinga
Jagadeesh A.Raja by partnership nallur village,
V.N.Sudhagaran Saidapet, New RS 2,35,200.00
No.1/1F
Ex.P44 Agreement of Sale -do- Agricultural land with
Gayathri Chandran 1400 sq.ft. building
No.189, Sholinganallur 5,30,400.00
village
Ex.P45 Agreement of Sale Agricultural land with
K.T.Chandravadhanan -do- 16.75 cents No.189,
Sholinganallur village 2,35,200.00
Ex.P46 Sundari Shankar M/s.Sasikala S.No.588/2A &
Enterprises 588/2B of 4830 sq.ft.
of land with building
No.C-62, Thiru 1,90,000.00
Venkada nagar colony,
Ambattur, Madras-53
Ex.P47 Tmt. Sakunthala Lex Property Door No.150 (Plot
Balachandar Development No.1-A) (RS No.3705) 52,000.00
T.T.K Road, Chennai-
Ex.P68 Dr. S. Palanisamy Maha Subhalakshmi Plot No.PC 42, Block
Kalyana Mandapam No.21 of Arumbakkam
V.N.Sudhagaram village Egmore 7,50,000.00
Nungambakkam 3197
Sq.ft.
Ex.P69 -do- -do- -do- 7,50,000.00
Ex.P70 Mrs. Suganthi M/s. Jaya Publication Door No.11/1, 3rd St.,
Selvarathnam by the partner Parameswari Nagar, 30,00,000.00
N.Sasikala Adyar, Madras-20
Ex.P71 -do- -do- -do- 30,00,000.00
Ex.P73 B.Lalitha Kumar J. Farm Houses by 1.29 acres in In
Bhandari partner A-3 Jambakkam 5,75,000.00
S.No.18/4A-1
Ex.P74 L.Shaharajan Begum J.S.Housing Plot Nos.40 & 41 13,05,000.00
Development V.G.P. Golden Beach,
Shalinganallur
Ex.P75 Narasammal & Minor J.Vivek by S.No.43/2, 3 acres 51 1,40,000.00
Chandra Bai Guardian mother A-4 cents,
Karunkuzhipallam,
Chenglepet

Ex.P76 Narasammal & -do- S.No.46, 4 acres 52

Chandra Bai cents,
Karunkuzhipallam 1,80,000.00
village, Chenglet Dist.
Ex.P77 Krishnan & 3 others -do- S.No.45, 4 acres 15
cents,
Karunkuzhipallam 1,64,000.00
village, Chenglet Dist.
Ex.P78 -do- -do- -do- 1,64,000.00
Ex.P79 Uma Shankarmadi Jaya Publication Door No.98/99, Luz
N.Sasikala Church Road, 1,87,000.00
Mylapore, Madras-4
Ex.P81 Rathnavelu A-2 4.41 acres of land at
Velakapuram 33,075.00
S.No.198/180F6
Ex.P82 -do- A-2 0.41 acres of
agricultural land
S.No.154/B2 3,075.00
Velakapuram
Ex.P83 Baby A-2 4.41 acres of land 33,075.00
Velakapuram
Ex.P84 Mathivanan A-2 1.42 acres of land
Velakapuram 10,650.00
S.No.198/180F3
Ex.P85 Suresh A-2 1.42 acres
Velakapuram 10,650.00
S.No.198/180F15
Ex.P86 Sivagami & 2 others A-2 4.41 acres of land at 33,075.00
Velakapuram
S.No.198/180 F7
Ex.P87 Swaminathan A-2 4.41 acres of land at 33,075.00
Velakapuram
S.No.198/180 F2
Ex.P88 V.D.Balasubramaniam A-2 4.41 acres of land at 33,075.00
Velakapuram
S.No.198/180 F5
Ex.P89 Ajmal Khan A-2 4.41 acres of land at 33,075.00
Velakapuram
S.No.198/180 F5
Ex.P90 Salim Khan A-2 4.41 acres of land at 33,075.00
Velakapuram
S.No.198/180 F8
Ex.P91 Fathima Ghani A-2 1.42 acres 10,650.00
Velakapuram
S.No.198/180 F3
Ex.P92 Mythili A-2 1.42 acres 10,650.00
Velakapuram
S.No.198/180 F1
Ex.P93 S.Renuka A-2 1.42 acres 10,650.00
Velakapuram
S.No.198/180 F10
Ex.P94 Janarthanam A-2 1.42 acres 10,650.00
Velakapuram
S.No.198/180 F14
Ex.P95 Ramjan Beevi A-2 1.42 acres 10,650.00
Velakapuram
S.No.198/180 F16
Ex.P96 S.Manimegalai A-2 5.80 acres, No.155,
Payyanur village,
Chenglepet, MGR Dist. 1,00,000.00
Ex.P97 -do- A-2 3.52 acres, No.155,
Payyanur village,
Chenglepet, MGR Dist. 1,95,000.00
Ex.P98 Gangai Amaron A-2 5.28 acres, No.155,
Payyanur village,
Chenglepet, MGR Dist. 1,95,000.00
Ex.P99 -do- A-2 0.40 acres, No.155,
Payyanur village,
Chenglepet, MGR Dist. 1,60,000.00
Ex.P100 -do- A-2 0.40 acres, No.155,
Payyanur village,
Chenglepet, MGR Dist. 1,70,000.00
Ex.P101 -do- A-2 2.76 acres, No.155,
Payyanur village,
Chenglepet, MGR Dist. 1,50,000.00
Ex.P102 -do- A-2 4.23 acres, No.155,
Payyanur village,
Chenglepet, MGR Dist. 1,55,000.00

Ex.P103 -do- A-2 51 cents of land at
S.Nos.381/9, 392/2 1,90,000.00
and 392/1, Payyanur
village
Ex.P104 A.Kantha Bai & A-2 2 acres & 3 cents at
others No.155 Payyanur 3,04,500.00
village
Ex.P105 Ramayamma A-2 1/6th share, Door
No.1/1, Luz Avenue,
Mylapur, Madras-4 9,00,000.00
Ex.P106 -do- J. Elavarasi -do- 9,00,000.00
Ex.P107 -do- V.N.Sudhagaran -do- 9,00,000.00
Ex.P108 Ramayamma J.S.Housing 1/6th undivided share
Door No.1/1, Luz
Avenue, Mylapore, 9,00,000.00
Madras-4
Ex.P109 -do- M/s.Anjaneya -do- 9,00,000.00
Printers
Ex.P110 -do- M/s.Jaya Contractors
& Builders -do- 9,00,000.00
Ex.P122 T.P.Gopinathan A-3 11 acres and 83 cents
in 124, Siruthavur 1,90,000.00
village
Ex.P123 -do- A-3 10 acres and 86 cents
in 124, Siruthavur 1,80,000.00
village
Ex.P124 -do- A-3 7 acres and 44 cents
in 124, Siruthavur 1,10,000.00
village
Ex.P125 K. Maragatham Green Farm House 13, 3rd Main Road,
A-3 Seethammal Colony, 1,10,000.00
Alwarpet
Ex.P133 Tmt.Indirani Sasi Enterprises S.No.94, Plot No.5A,
Rengaraj 5B, 5C Neelangarai 5,07,000.00
village
Ex.P134 -do- A-4 No.145, Neelangarai
Gramam 8,50,000.00
Ex.P135 A.Arifa Amanullah Lex Property 11 cents of land and
building in S.No.74/1,
old pymash Nos.152 & 6,80,000.00
152A of 145
Neelangorai village
Ex.P136 A.Arifa Amanullah Lex Property 11 cents of land and
building in S.No.74/1,
Neelangorai village 8,20,000.00
Ex.P137 M.O.Amanullah A-4 124, Siruthavur village
Maraicoir 1,90,000.00
Ex.P138 -do- A-4 124, Siruthavur village 1,90,000.00
& 111,
Karunguzhipallam,
Alanthur
Ex.P139 -do- A-4 Siruthavur,

S.No.381/1

1,70,000.00
Ex.P143 A.S.K.Raja Ramraj Agro Mills 3.11 acres of land,
S.No.79, Vandampalai
village, Nannilam 62,200.00
Taluk
Ex.P144 A.S.Arunachalam, Ramraj Agro Mills 4.44 acres of land,
GPA Holder S.No.83/1 & S.No.80
Mr.Gandhi situated in 165
Vandampalai village 88,800.00
Ex.P145 S.Ramasamy, GPA Ramraj Agro Mills 6.50 acres
Holder Gandhi Keelakavathukudi
village, S.Nos.81/1,
81/2, 84/1 and 82/1c 1,30,000.00
situated in 165
vandampalai village
Ex.P146 Mrs.Valli, GPA Holder Ramraj Agro Mills 8.91 acres of land
Gandhi S.Nos.77/1A, 1C, 1B
and 82/1B situated in 1,78,200.00
165 vandampalai
village
Ex.P147 A.Rajamani Ammal Ramraj Agro Mills, 4.57 acres of land,
Power Agent Madras-2 S.Nos.75, 76/5,
Mr.Asokan 76/2A, 77/1D, 78/1, 1,62,000.00
78/2 at No.165
Vandampalai village
Ex.P148 P.L.Deenadayalam & Meadow Agro Farms Kanchipuram Taluk,
2 others Uthukadu village,
S.Nos.717/5, 718/2 86,000.00
Ex.P153 K.Manavalan, Power 1.08 acres of land,
Agent MRM.Rajagopal -do- Kanchipuram Taluk,
Uthukadu village, 10,800.00

S.No.612/2

A
Ex.P154 K.Manavalan, Power -do- 1.08 acres of land,
Agent Uthukadu village, 10,800.00
S.No.612/2-A-1
Ex.P155 K.Manavalan, Power -do- 1.80 acres of land,
Agent Uthukadu village, 18,000.00

S.No.612/1

Ex.P156 K.Manavalan, Power -do- 11.25 acres of land
Agent Uthukadu village, 1,12,500.00

S.No.611/2

Ex.P161 P.S.Rajaram, Power -do- Property of 1,27,000.00
Agent Kachipuram Taluk
Ex.P165 -do- -do- 6 acres of land in
No.92, Uthukadu 60,000.00
village
Ex.P172 -do- -do- 11 acres and 66 cents
of land, Uthukadu 1,16,600.00
village
Ex.P174 -do- -do- 9.65 cents of land in
No.92, Uthukadu 96,500.00
village
Ex.P180 -do- -do- 10.29 cents of land in
Uthukadu village, 1,02,900.00
No.92
Ex.P184 -do- -do- 8 acres and 32 cents
of land in Uthukadu 83,200.00
village, No.92
Ex.P190 -do- -do- 8 acres and 65 cents
of land in Uthukadu 86,000.00
village, No.92
Ex.P197 -do- -do- 6 acres and 40.5 cents
of land in Uthukadu 64,050.00
village
Ex.P207 -do- -do- 7 acres and 11 ½
cents of land in 71,150.00
Uthukadu village
Ex.P214 -do- -do- 15.71 cents in 1,57,100.00
Uthukadu village
Ex.P221 -do- -do- 9 acres 50 cents of
land in Uthukadu 95,000.00
village
TOTAL 6,24,09,120.00

CASH PAID OVER AND ABOVE SALE CONSIDERATION

In so far as these items are concerned, there is no

acceptable evidence adduced by the prosecution to show

that un-accounted money was parted by the accused to
the sellers. Therefore, I value the cost paid over and

above the sale consideration as "Nil".

COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS INCLUDING NEW AND
ADDITIONAL:

STATEMENT SHOWING COST OF CONSTRUCTION
& ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION

IN ANNEXURE-II

Sl. Exhibits Page Amount [in Rs.]
No. No.
1 Ex.P673 174 Rs. 80,75,000.00
2 Ex.P662 176 Rs. 1,25,90,261.00
3 Ex.P643 178 Rs. 1,52,59,076.00
4 Ex.P663 177 Rs. 2,13,63,457.00
5 Ex.P645 179 Rs. 6,40,33,901.00
6 Ex.P661 180 Rs. 5,40,52,298.00
7 Ex.P671 181 Rs. 7,24,98,000.00
8 Ex.P667 182 Rs. 29,59,000.00
9 Ex.P669 183 Rs. 80,36,868.00
10 Ex.P670 184 Rs. 8,00,000.00
11 Ex.P666 185 Rs. 20,43,000.00
12 Ex.P641 186 Rs. 24,83,759.00
13 Ex.P642 187 Rs. 10,92,828.00
14 Ex.P668 188 Rs. 53,11,000.00
15 Ex.P644 189 Rs. 20,38,959.00
16 Ex.P677 190 Rs. 39,34,000.00
17 Ex.P674 & 191 Rs. 14,17,538.00
Ex.P675
Total Rs.27,79,88,945.00

This Court has given a finding to the effect that the

cost of construction is Rs.5,10,54,060/-.

Cost of construction as per DV & AC - Rs.27,79,88,945.00

Less: Cost of construction as per
finding of this Court Rs. 5,10,54,060.00
Rs.22,69,34,885.00
This amount of Rs.22,69,34,885/- has been

deducted from the assets.

In so far as Gold, Diamond jewelry, Silver wares,

Fixed Deposit, Shares, Cash balance in Bank Accounts

Valuation of the Vehicle, Valuation of the Machineries,

Valuation of the Wrist Watches are concerned, the

valuation made by the Director of Vigilance and Anti

Corruption has been accepted.

Section 107
of the IPC deals with abetment of a

thing. Abetment is constituted by instigating a person for

committing an offence or intentionally hiding a person

committing it. Instigation necessarily connotes some

suggestion or support or stimulation to the commission of

the act itself. Sometimes, illegal omission also comes

under the purview of the abetment. Though the

prosecution has adduced evidence, nearly about 259

witnesses, prosecution mainly relies on registration of 165

documents i.e., sale deeds and registration of the

documents at the residence of Accused No.1. In the

instant case, the case of the prosecution is that, Accused

No.1 has amassed wealth and she has parted with this

amount to Accused Nos. 2 to 4 to acquire immovable
properties, namely, agricultural lands, sites and 32 firms

and companies. There is a positive evidence to the effect

that the Accused, firms and companies have borrowed a a

loan in a sum of Rs.24,17,31,274/-. Besides, they also

borrowed loans from private parties. This loan borrowed

by private parties has not been considered by this Court.

However, the evidence reveals that this amount has been

utilized for purchase of agricultural lands, sites, firms and

companies. Therefore, the question of Accused No.1

abetting for Accused Nos. 2 to 4 for acquiring the

immovable properties does not arise. Accused Nos. 1 to 4

individually secured loans from the banks and they have

acquired the properties. Therefore, the charge under

Section 107 read with
section 109
of the Act must fail.

Insofar as criminal conspiracy by Accused Nos. 1 to 4

is concerned, allegation against Accused No.1 is that

Accused No.1 has amassed wealth and it has been parted

to Accused Nos. 2 to 4 to acquire immovable properties

such as lands, sites, partnership firms and companies. The

prosecution case is that amassing the wealth and parting

the amount for Accused Nos. 2 to 4 is illegal act and it is

an illegal agreement. As stated earlier, prosecution has
relied on evidence of PW.56 - P.S. Rajaram and PW.76 -

Siva, broker, speak about sale deeds of lands. The Trial

Court has also relied on evidence of these witnesses and

came to conclusion that there was abetment as well as

conspiracy to use the ill-gotten wealth for purchase of

immovable properties and also acquiring the firms and

companies. The agreement is gist of the offence.

Conspiracy is an inference from circumstances. Since the

conspiracy is often hatched up in utmost secrecy, it is

impossible to prove the same by direct evidence. Mere

Accused Nos. 2 to 4 living with Accused No.1 does not

itself contemplate offence of conspiracy. Conspiracy

construes any combination or agreement between two or

more persons to do an unlawful act. There must be reason

to believe that there was conspiracy and accused persons

were members of that conspiracy.

Section 10
of the Indian Evidence Act deals with

things said or done by the Conspirator in reference to

common desire. This section will come into play only when

Court is satisfied that there are reasonable ground to

believe that two or more persons have conspired together

i.e. to say there must be prima facie evidence. Where
evidence is only circumstantial, the circumstance in their

totality must be such as would not only be consistent with

the guilt of the Accused, but also inconsistent with any

reasonable hypothesis of his innocence. The aspects of

criminal conspiracy are an agreement to believe an illegal

act. In the present case, evidence on record discloses that

Accused Nos. 2 to 4 have borrowed huge amount and they

have acquired the immovable properties like agricultural

lands, legal entities. The source of income is lawful.

Object is also lawful. Just because Accused Nos. 2 to 4

stay along with Accused No.1, that itself is not component

which the Court can come to the conclusion that Accused

Nos. 1 to 4 abetted and conspired and acquired the

property in an improper way.

In the case of
SONAMATI DEVI AND ANOTHER vs.

THE STATE
reported in AIR 1958 PATNA 508 (V 45 C

1262); Head Notes a, b and c read as under:

"(a) Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance
(38 of 1944) Ss, 5 (2) 4- Claim under
S.4
-

Onus of proof -
(Evidence Act
(1872) S.100.

"The entire scheme of the Ordinance
shows that evidence has to be adduced by the
claimant in support of his case that he has
interest in the property attached, and when
that evidence has been adduced, it is for the
court to consider whether that evidence was
sufficient to establish his claim, independent of
the question whether any evidence in rebuttal
had been adduced by the state. If that
evidence by itself is not sufficient to establish
the claim laid by the claimant, the claim must
fail, not-withstanding the fact that no evidence
to the contrary had been led in behalf of the
state. (para 4)
Anno: C.J.I Evi Act, Ss.100-103 N.3

(b) Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance
(38 of 1944)
S.2 (2) (a)
- Date if termination -

Appeal to High Court pending - Date of final
order of High Court is the date.

(para 5)

(c) Criminal Law Amendment ordinance
(38 of 1944), Ss.10, 13 - Acquittal by District
Judge - Effect on attachment.

The combined effect of Ss. 10 and 13 is
that notwithstanding the order of acquittal the
attachment will continue in full force until the
District Judge has passed orders in accordance
with the provisions of
S.13
. Therefore, the
acquittal of the accused has not the effect of
terminating the attachment.

(para 6)"
The Court should give a finding in case the accused

is convicted, as to the amount of money or value of other

property procured by means of the offence. This would

comply with the
Section 12 (1)
of the Criminal Law

Amendment Ordinance, 1944.
Section 3
of the Criminal

Law amendment Ordinance, 1944 deals with i) the money

or other property procured by means of the offence, ii)

property other than the above. Learned District Judge

should know the amount he is to forfeit. The forfeiture by

the District Judge under
Section 13(3)
cannot be equated

to forfeiture of property which is provided in
Section 53
of

the Indian Penal Code.
Section 13(1)
of the Criminal Law

Amendment Ordinance, 1944 deals with upon the

termination of any criminal proceedings.
Article 20(1)

deals with the conviction of persons for offences and for

subjecting them to penalties. It firstly provides that no

person shall be convicted of any offence except for

violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of

the act charged as an offence. Secondly, it provides that

no person shall be subjected to a penalty greater than that

which might have been inflicted under the law in force at

the time of the commission of the offence. Notice of the
interim order should be given to the concerned parties.

The court should indicate the money or value of the

property obtained by means of the said offence.
Section
of the Ordinance lays down that criminal court

convicting the accused shall record finding as to the

amount of money or value of other property procured by

the accused by means of the offence. It is at the end of

the trial only the court will be in a position to evaluate the

money or other property procured by the accused by

means of the offence. No specific provision was made for

determination by the court of the illegal profits and other

gains obtained by the accused from the properties

acquired by him by bribery or corruption. The court will

determine to what extent the assets are disproportionate

and to this extent only the assets are liable for

confiscation. Till this stage, it cannot be said with certainty

as to which portion of the property under attachment is

liable for confiscation. The combined effect of
Sections 10

and
is that notwithstanding the order of acquittal the

attachment will continue in full force until the District

Judge has passed the orders in accordance with the
provisions of
Section 13
. Therefore, acquittal of the

accused has no effect of terminating the attachment.

The attachment will be in force and continue in force

until orders as provided by
Sections 10
and
of Criminal

Law Amendment Ordinance (38 of 1944) are passed by the

District Judge.

The power to confiscate can be exercised only with

respect to the property which was actually used in

commission of offence. One of the contentions raised by

learned Counsel for the appellants is that no notice have

been served on the companies and firms, therefore

confiscation is bad in law. Parties interested have not

been heard. The learned Sessions Judge cannot straight

away confiscate the property without giving a hearing to

the interested parties.

Statement recorded under sections 161 and 162 can

be looked into during the trial and enquiry. The question

of confiscation arises only after conclusion of trial. Even

statement of accused or witnesses can be looked into for

disposal of the property which takes place at the

conclusion of the enquiry or trial of the case. It is well
settled that an order of confiscation without holding an

enquiry is illegal. While disposing of the property, reasons

for choosing a particular mode should be stated. The court

should give a finding that in case the Accused is convicted

for an amount of money or value of property procured by

himself as an offence, then only there will be compliance of

section 12
[1] of Criminal Law [Amendment] Ordinance,

1944.

The Trial Court should know what amount of the

Accused has to forfeit. At the first instance, property will

be attached. The Anti Corruption and Investigating Agency

made an application for attachment of the property.

Subsequently, after conclusion of the trial, the property in

question was confiscated. I understand that there are

several miscellaneous first appeals filed before this Court

with regard to attachment. Therefore, I do not want to

express any opinion with regard to attachment. Even in

case if there is acquittal of the Accused, it will not have the

effect of terminating the attachment. However, since no

notice have been issued to the Accused, the Trial Court has

not considered the statement of witnesses and also the

statement of the accused and also the evidence placed on
record. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the

evidence in a proper perspective. The immovable

properties were acquired by borrowing huge loan from the

Nationalised Banks. It is difficult to infer that the

properties were acquired by means of ill-gotten money.

Therefore, in my view, confiscation of the properties by the

Trial Court is not sustainable in law.

Dr. Subramanian Swamy filed a private complaint

before the Principal Sessions and District Judge, Chennai in

Miscellaneous Petition No.3238/1996 which was registered.

After registration of the crime, exercising the power under

section 210
of Cr.PC, both private complaint and the

complaint instituted under the Police report were clubbed.

Accused No.1 was arrayed as Accused in the First

Information Report. Though names of Accused Nos. 2 to 4

were mentioned in the first information report, they were

not arrayed as Accused. Benami transaction was also

alleged in the first information report. But, the

investigating agency did not file charge sheet for benami

transaction. The provision under
section 13
[1][e] of the

Prevention of Corruption Act
connotes if he or any other

person on his behalf is in possession or clearly suggests
that any person to have resources on behalf of the public

servant that would be included in his assets, in the sense

that, he would have to account to these assets also. So

the prosecution mainly relies on
sections 13
[1][a] and

13[1][e] of the
Prevention of Corruption Act
. The charge

sheet was filed against Accused Nos. 1 to 4. The

allegation is that the Accused No.1 amassed wealth and

Accused Nos. 2 to 4 purchased various properties. But,

the prosecution has not adduced any evidence to the effect

that Accused No.1 instigated or conspired together with

Accused Nos. 2 to 4 to acquire lands and immovable

properties. The prosecution mainly relies on evidence of

the Sub-Registrar and brokers and also the sale deeds.

Except marking the sale deeds, there is no other evidence.

The burden lies on the prosecution to establish benami

transaction. The prosecution has not adduced any

evidence with regard to allegation of benami transaction.

Accused No.1 is cine actress. She has filed returns since

she was a minor. The property bearing No.36, Poes

Garden, was acquired by her mother and also Natya Kala

Nikethan. Accused No.1 acquired adjacent property of Poes

Garden for sum of Rs.8 lakhs. Except this, she has not
purchased any property. The allegation of prosecution is

that Accused Nos.2 to 4 purchased the property from the

ill gotten money of Accused No.1. The value of immovable

property acquired amounts to Rs.6,24,09,120/- i.e.,

agricultural lands. Kodanadu Tea Estate was acquired by

Accused Nos. 2 to 4 and it is worth about Rs.3.50 Crores.

The prosecution itself has shown the property of Accused

Nos. 1 to 4 firms and companies to the extent of

Rs.9,34,26,053.56/- whereas the loan borrowed by

Accused Nos. 1 to 4 and also firms and companies is to the

extent of Rs.24,17,31,274/-. The burden lies on the

prosecution in
'SITARAM SYAN NARAIN v. ISWARI

CHARAN SARANGI AND OTHERS
' reported in AIR 1934

PATNA 492 wherein the High Court of Patna has held with

regard to intermingling of goods with that of the plaintiff -

burden of proving what proportion belonged to plaintiff is a

must.

Section 103
of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 reads

as under:

"103.Burden of proof as to particular fact

- The burden of proof as to any particular fact
lies on that person who wishes the Court to
believe in its existence, unless it is provided by
any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on
any particular person."

All the facts, however, numerous and complicated

which goes to make the Accused guilt, must be proved by

the prosecution. If the Accused wishes to prove a

particular fact, for example, source of income from which

he acquired the assets, then he must prove it. The role

played by each of the Accused has also to be established

by the Prosecution. But, in the instant case, prosecution

has not adduced any evidence in respect of
section 103
of

the Indian Evidence Act.

It is the allegation of the prosecution that Accused

Nos. 1 to 4 acquired various immovable properties,

invested huge amount towards construction. Though

nearly 14 Engineers were examined, but the valuation

report has been marked, the Engineers did not speak

anything about measurement of the buildings, except

marking the valuation report. It is well settled that the

documents do not themselves prove the contents therein.

The proof of contents has to be given by cogent evidence.

If these two aspects have been narrated by the witnesses,
then an opportunity should be given to the opposite parties

to contest the correctness of such evidence by cross

examination. But, in the instant case, simply valuation

report has been marked, contents have not been narrated.

The prosecution witnesses, namely, Engineers have used

the word supreme quality of marbles, granites highest

quality of sanitary fittings. But, the evidence on record

discloses that the marbles and granites were around

Rs.100/- and sanitary fittings are of Hindustan

Sanitaryware and Jaguar. I have adopted the square rate

and cost of construction per square rate is taken as

Rs.28,000/-. The marbles or granites samples were not

sent to the suppliers.Quotation is not procured. They have

simply guessed the rate and assessed the value of granite

and marbles. The construction cost was valued at

Rs.27,79,88,945/- by the DV & AC. The construction area

measured by way of square feet is about 1,66,839.68 sq.

feet. It amounts to 1668.39 squares. The learned

Sessions Judge has simply on guess work has reduced the

cost of construction to the extent of 20% without verifying

the evidence and the material placed on record. This

Court has to assess the value of the construction of the
year 1995. This has to be assessed in the year 2015. It is

a very difficult task when evidence of Engineers of PWD

are vague and without any data like measurement by way

of square feet and measurement of area laying of marbles

and granites and even to ascertain the value of teak, no

Forest Officer or Expert has been examined. The

Engineers of the PWD are more theoretical rather than

practical.

Insofar as marriage expenditure is concerned,

Accused No.1 has disclosed that she has spent about

Rs.28,68,000/- for bearing marriage expenses. DW.1 -

Ramkumar has deposed that he has spent about Rs.92

lakhs. Bank passbook is also produced and marked. The

bride's father Narayanswamy was a Professor in IIT. His

evidence on record discloses that he has spent about Rs.18

lakhs. There is positive evidence to the effect that party

workers of AIADMK has met the expenses of food and

pandal. Engineers valued pandal based on plan. Their

evidence is to the effect that without inspecting the

pandal, they have given statement of expenditure that

might have occurred. Their evidence is hear-say. The

evidence on record reveals that party workers took up the
responsibility of erecting pandal. SriA.R. Rahman and

SriMandolin Srinivas have performed music with free of

cost. The bridegroom's grandfather is Mr. Sivajiganeshan.

He was a famous Tamil film actor. He was also known to

A.R. Rahman. Now the question that arises is what is the

amount that was spent by Accused No.1 for the marriage

of Accused No.3. Accused No.1 has declared in her income

tax returns that she has spent about Rs.28,68,000/-. In

our Hindu customs, it is bride's family members who take

care of marriage expenditure. Nominal expenditure will be

borne by bridegroom's family. Just because Accused No.1

was Chief Minister at that time, we cannot saddle all the

marriage expenses on her part. Relying on income tax

returns towards expenditure of marriage, I consider that

she has spent about Rs.28,68,000/-. Besides, evidence of

father of bride is withheld by the prosecution. Accused

No.3 Bridegroom has also not entered the witness box.

The Priest who has performed the marriage has not been

examined. The Contractor for putting up pandal has not

been examined in this case. Due to insufficient and vague

evidence, it is difficult to assess as to what is the
expenditure that is incurred. Besides, some expenses are

not verifiable expenditure.

PW.259 - Nallamma Naidu fairly admits in his

evidence that reference is made to the letter sent to

Governor through Government of Tamilnadu and in that

letter disproportionate assets made was Rs.

Rs.62,25,20,896/-. Notice was also issued to Accused

No.1 for her say. But, she replied that, she will give reply

in the Court. Annexure-II to the charge sheet revealed

that the amount disproportionate is Rs.66,44,73,537.27/-.

Annexure-VII reveals an amount of Rs.2,23,30,799/- is

added. The prosecution valued disproportionate assets at

Rs.66,65,20,395/-. The evidence of PW.259 is inconsistent

because while seeking sanction he mentions amount as

Rs.62,25,20,896/-, but while filing charge sheet it is

mentioned as Rs.66,44,73,537.27/-. The evidence of

PW.259 also reveals that Accused Nos. 1 to 4 have

borrowed heavy loans. Anti-Corruption and Vigilance

Manual is not framed in conformity with the rulings of the

Apex Court. Manual does not indicate as to what is the

percentage of disproportionate income/assets are to be

mentioned in the FIR or charge sheet. In my view, the
omission to mention the percentage of disproportionate

income in the charge sheet is not in accordance with law.

The case of the prosecution that Accused No.1 amassed

wealth and acquired agricultural lands, sites, floated firms,

became Directors of the companies cannot be believed

because the money that has been spent for acquiring the

said properties can be inferred from the loans borrowed

from the Nationalized Banks. Besides, Accused was having

an income from Kodanadu Tea Estate for about ten

months.

PW.177 - Shanmugha Sundaram speaks about loan

application of Tmt. Gunapasini for a sum of Rs.3.75

Crores. On request of Gunapasini, they changed the loan

liability to A2, A3 and A4 since they became the share

holders.

The evidence of PW.71 - S.Radhakrishnan,

Horticulture Officer reveals at Page No.11 that at Metal

King Sudhakaran met Hiriyan personally for 10 minutes.

Hiriyan was appointed for the kodanadu Tea Estate and

given an honorarium of Rs.5,000/- per month, that day

night he and Hiriyan went to Ooty. From there, via
Kothagiri went to Kodanadu. He introduced Hiriyan to

Kodanadu Manager there and later returned to

Thirunelveli. Kodanadu Tea Estate measures 800 acres. In

that, already in 700 acres, tea has been cultivated. The

remaining were vacant lands. Hiriyan said that there, one

acre of land will fetch Rs.1 lakh. In Kodanadu there were

two Bungalows, one tea factory and quarters for the

employees.On perusal of evidence of PW.71, it is clear that

Kodanadu Tea Estate generated income to the extent of

Rs.7 Crores. This is the income generated from the tea

estate. The Investigating Agency has valued the building

constructed in the tea estate and also pipes
laid down in

the tea estate. But, it is very strange that they have not

assessed the income of the tea estate and added to

Annexure-III i.e., income during check period between

1.7.1991 to 30.4.1996. The Investigating Agency has

omitted this income in Annexure-III. Even defence has not

examined any witness as to what is the income generated

from the tea estate and they have also not claimed the

same. Therefore, this court has not considered this income

while calculating disproportionate assets. However, I am

constrained to mention that this aspect cannot be ignored
totally while calculating the disproportionate assets of the

Accused.

PW.53 - R. Ashokan speaks about capacity of

grinding 100 tonnes of paddy everyday by Ramraj Agro

Mills Limited. This income has also not been properly

assessed. The learned Special Judge has not appreciated

the evidence placed on record in a proper perspective.

Though I have not considered the value of footwear

and sarees, there is discrepancy in the evidence of PW.259

- Nallamma Naidu, Chief Investigating Officer. Annexure-

II discloses assets at the end of the check period i.e., as

on 30.4.1996, combination of Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4,

partnership firms, companies is Rs.66,44,73,537/-. I

intend to take the value of the assets as indicated by the

prosecution i.e., Rs.66,44,73,537/-.

In the case of KRISHNANAND AGNIHOTRI V/S.

STATE OF M.P reported in AIR 1977 SC 796; wherein

paragraph No.33 reads as under:

"It will, therefore, be seen that as
against an aggregate surplus income of
Rs.44,383.59 which was available to the
appellant during the period in question, the
appellant possessed total assets worth
Rs.55,732.25. The assets possessed by the
appellant were thus in excess of the surplus
income available to him, but since the excess
is comparatively very small - it is less than
10%, of the total income of Rs.1,27,715.43 -
we do not think it would be right to hold that
the assets found in possession of the appellant
were disproportionate to his known source of
income so as to justify the raising of
presumption under sub-Section(3) of Section

5. We are of the view that, on the facts of the
present case, the High Court as well as the
Special Judge were in error in raising the
presumption contained in sub-Section(3) of

Section 5
and convicting the appellant on the
basis of such presumption."

Applying the principle laid-down in above mentioned

Krishnanand Agnihotri's Case, statements showing the

calculation of Total Assets and Income of accused Nos.1 to

4, firms and companies and arriving at the percentage of

disproportionate assets thereof, are as under:
PARTICULARS AMOUNT TOTAL AMOUNT
(IN RUPEES) (IN RUPEES)
Assets as per DV & AC 66,44,73,573
i) Cost of construction:
As per DV & AC 27,79,88,945
Less: As per records and finding
5,10,54,060
Total (A)
22,69,34,885

ii) Marriage Expenses:
As per DV & AC 6,45,04,222
Less: As per finding of this
Court
28,68,000
Total (B)
6,16,36,222

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

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

37,59,02,466
TOTAL ASSETS

Statement of the income of Accused Nos. 1 to 4,

firms and companies are as under:

Sl. Amount
Particulars
No. (in Rupees)
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 & 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 DV & AC 9,34,26,054

34,76,65,654
TOTAL INCOME
DISPROPORTIONATE ASSETS:

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%

It is well settled law that according to Krishnanand

Agnihotri's case, when there is disproportionate asset to

the extent of 10%, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

A circular has been issued by the Government of Andhra

Pradesh that disproportionate asset to the extent of 20%

can also be considered as a permissible limit. The margin

of 10% to 20% of the disproportionate assets has been

taken as a permissible limit, taking into consideration the

inflatory measures. Since the value of apparels and

slippers etc., are of insignificant value, I did not deduct

this amount from the assets of DV & AC. The Prosecution

has mixed up assets of Accused, firms and companies and

also added the cost of construction i.e., Rs.27,79,88,945/-

and marriage expenses at Rs.6,45,04,222/- and valued the
assets at Rs.66,44,73,573/-. If we remove the

exaggerated value of cost of construction and marriage

expenses, the assets will work out at Rs.37,59,02,466/-.

The total income of the Accused, firms and companies is

Rs.34,76,65,654/-. Lack of proportion amount is

Rs.2,82,36,812/-. The percentage of disproportionate

assets is 8.12%. It is relatively small. In the instant case,

the disproportionate asset is less than 10% and it is within

permissible limit. Therefore, Accused are entitled for

acquittal. When the principal Accused has been acquitted,

the other Accused, who have played a lesser role are also

entitled for acquittal.

In an appeal from a conviction it is for the appellate

Court as for the first Court to be satisfied affirmatively that

the prosecution case is substantially true and that the guilt

of the appellants has been established beyond all

reasonable doubt. It is not for the appellants to satisfy the

appellate Court that the first Court had come to a wrong

finding. In an appeal by some of the convicted persons, it

is open to this Court as an appellate Court to examine the

entire evidence. The powers of the appellate Court under

this Section are the same as those of the Trial Court. If
after examining the evidence, this Court is in a position to

say that the findings arrived at are erroneous, or contrary

to evidence then not only there is no legal prohibition to do

so but in the interest of justice, that must be done. In this

case, the Trial Court has ignored the Income Tax

proceedings as minimum evidentiary value. The Trial Court

has not appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective.

Though the Trial Court in its judgment mentioned that the

accused availed loan by the Indian Bank, but it has not

considered the same as income. Therefore, the Trial Court

has erred in not considering the loans as income. Even the

valuation though disputed by the defence, the Trial Court

has failed to examine the evidence relating to cost of

construction at that relevant time and simply arrived at a

conclusion that 20% of the cost has to be reduced without

appreciating the evidence placed on record. This 20%

reduction is calculated on surmises and conjectures. The

Trial Court has assessed the Marriage Expenses at

Rs.3,00,00,000/-. There is no acceptable evidence to

point-out that A-1 has spent about Rs.3,00,00,000/-. In

spite of it, the Trial Court has arrived at a figure of

Rs.3,00,00,000/- as modest and conservative estimation.
Arriving at Rs.3,00,00,000/- towards marriage expenses

and fixing liability of Rs.3,00,00,000/- to A-1 alone is not

proper. Most of the claims put-forth by the accused have

been rejected by the Trial Court. It is the contention of

the learned counsel for the appellants that without treating

the witnesses as hostile, the witnesses were recalled and

cross-examined. The questions are put in such a manner

that whether what they have stated in the examination-in-

chief is correct or in the cross-examination is correct by

securing answer to this question and also by adopting this

method, they cannot wipe-out the answers elicited in the

cross-examination. This is also one of the factors, which

weigh in favour of the accused. If the witness gives

different statements at different stages, it is unsafe to

place reliance on them. Taking into consideration of overall

circumstances and material placed on record, in my view,

the Judgment and finding recorded by the Trial Court

suffers from infirmity and it is not sustainable in law.
12. In view of the above discussion, I pass

the following:

ORDER

[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 leveled
against them.

[ii] The Bail bonds of A-1 to A-4 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.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KM/JTR/LB/AN/-