New Delhi, Feb 25: The three other accused staying the Poes Garden were taking bags of currency notes and depositing them in banks and this was not accounted for said Dushyanth Dave, senior advocate arguing on the behalf of Karnataka which is challenging the acquittal of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, J Jayalalithaa in the disproportionate assets case.
Dave was referring to Sasikala Natrajan, Ilavarasi and V Sudhakaran as the three other accused in the case who were also staying at the Poes Garden where the residence of Jayalalithaa is. Karnataka today will make submissions before the Supreme Court and also provide a list of witnesses in this case.
Cannot fault the trial court order:
Dave defended the verdict of the trial court which had convicted Jayalalithaa and others and said it ought not to have been interfered with by the Karnataka High Court.
The trial court had rendered a finding on each count of assets and expenses and came to the conclusion that the disproportionate assets totalled Rs 53 crore after accounting for Rs 13 crores towards expenses.
With regard to the marriage of Sudhakaran, the trial court had said that right from the erection of the pandals to the performance of the marriage all expenses were met by Jayalalithaa.
This also included reception and the accommodation of guests. All expenses on the marriage were met by Jayalalithaa except to the extent of Rs 14 lakh, which is said to have been contributed by the father of the bride.
The trial court was of the view that the Rs 6.45 crore amount spent on the marriage, as determined by the DVAC, appeared exorbitant and that it had arrived at an amount of Rs 3 crore even by modest and conservative estimation.
Dave further pointed out that Jayalalithaa was unable to explain the legal source of her income. The trial court had rightly concluded that the amount was disproportionate in nature and she was rightly convicted and sentenced to four years in jail.
In cases of corruption, the burden of proving the legal means of the income was on the accused, but she clearly failed to do so.
Today Karnataka will explain whether in Tamil Nadu there is a provision that mandates a public servant to disclose gifts or other sources of income to a competent authority. The court also wants to know that in the absence of any rule whether the general rule can be applied in such cases.