DA case: Karnataka wants to recover Rs 100 crore from Jaya's estate

It would be interesting to see what the Supreme Court would have to say on the review plea filed by Karnataka in which it sought a reversal of the verdict abating Jayalalithaa in the disproportionate assets case. While delivering the verdict, the court had made observations against Jayalalithaa albiet posthumously of how she had criminally conspired with co-accused Sasikala to launder ill-gotten wealth.

The court, however, said that the case against Jayalalithaa stood abated with her death. Effectively, this would mean that the Rs 100 crore fine imposed by the trial court on Jayalalithaa could not be collected by Karnataka.

It may be recalled that OneIndia had first reported on March 3 that Karnataka had planned on seeking a review of the order pertaining to the fine amount.

[Can Rs 100 crore be recovered from Jayalalithaa? Karnataka to seek clarification in SC]

What has Karnataka contended?

In the review petition, Karnataka said that if a party dies after the conclusion of arguments and the judgment is reserved, an order of abatement cannot be passed. The judgment subsequently pronounced shall have the same force and effect as if the same was pronounced before the death took place, Karnataka has contended.

It has been contended that there is no provision in the Constitution or the Supreme Court rules for such an abatement of appeal. It was also pointed out that as per the 2013 rules of the Supreme Court in both civil appeals and election petitions, there shall be no abatement if the death takes place after the conclusion of the hearing.
There cannot be an order of sentence since it is infructuous in the event of her death. However, the SC should have ordered that the fine of Rs 100 crore which was levied by the trial court must be paid. The fine should be recovered from her estate, Karnataka has also contended.

Even though the question of A 1 (Jayalalithaa) undergoing further imprisonment does not arise, sentence to pay fine is legally sustainable which has to be recovered from the estate. This is particularly so where the offence alleged is of illegally acquiring disproportionate assets. Therefore, the finding that the appeal has abated is not correct, it was further argued.

Karnataka also pointed out that a criminal appeal involving offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act stand on a slightly different footing where the allegation is of acquisition of disproportionate assets by a public servant. In the circumstances, though the death of the accused no 1 [Jayalalithaa] renders sentence of imprisonment infructuous, the question whether any fine is liable to be imposed as also confiscation of illegally acquired property will survive for consideration.

OneIndia News