Complaint/FIR in 1996 – charge sheet by Police in 1997 –
Charges framed by Trial Court – the Trial Court on September 27, 2014 convicted
and sentenced Ms J
Jayalalitha for four years and with a fine of Rs.100 crore,
and three other persons including Ms Sasikala Natrajan for four years each and with a fine of Rs.10 crores each – in appeal the High Court acquitted all of them –
appeal in SC - the Hon’ble SC gave patient hearing to all the parties.
Arguments concluded. Written submissions taken on record. Judgment was reserved on the 7th
June, 2016. Liberty was granted to the learned counsels for the parties
to file final written submissions/compilation of judgments, if any, by 10th
June, 2016 - On 5th December
2016, Ms J Jayalalitha passed
away and, thus in law by virtue of Section 394(1) of CrPC, the appeals against her
stood abated - the Hon’ble SC, on February 14, 2017, set aside the judgment and order of the High
Court and affirmed and restored the judgment of the Trial Court in toto against
remaining three persons.
(Moot point is whether the abatement of appeal vide Section 394(1) of CrPC against Late J Jayalalitha was right even wrt fine of Rs 100 crore imposed by the Trial Court inasmuch as that she got a full and effective hearing from Trial Court to
Supreme Court during her life time? The Judgment was reserved by Hon’ble SC on
7th June 2016 after a patient hearing to all parties after taking on
record the written submissions. Liberty was also granted
to the learned counsels for the parties to file final written
submissions/compilation of judgments, if any, by 10th June, 2016. About 6 months
thereafter, on 5th December
2016, Ms J Jayalalitha passed
away unfortunately. She left behind colossal corpus of properties. The Hon’ble
SC gave final verdict on February 14, 2017 affirming and restoring the judgment
of the Trial Court in toto against remaining three persons. Should not some
blame lie at the door of the Hon’ble SC for making an inordinate delay in
pronouncing the verdict? It may not be wholly out of place to note that according to Section 394(2) CrPC no appeal from a sentence of fine shall abate on the death of appellant)
NOTE:
TC conviction order swallowed by HC acquittal
order - appeal in SC abated and thus no order much less an adverse order
against her by the SC. Consequent thereupon, HC acquittal order still stands
and there is no revival of TC order – thus in the eyes of law, Late JJ
is untainted.
POST SCRIPT: 21 March 2017
Karnataka Government moves SC seeking review of judgement
exonerating the estate of late JJ from payment of fine of Rs 100/- crore
because of abatement of appeal against her.
(“If a party dies after the conclusion of the
arguments and the judgment is reserved, there is no question of abatement of
appeal and that the judgment subsequently pronounced shall have the same force
and effect as if the same was pronounced before the death took place...there
are no provisions either in the Constitution or in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013
for such abatement of appeal. On the other hand, the Supreme Court Rules, 2013
provide that both in case of civil appeals as well as election petitions there
will be no abatement if the death takes place after conclusion of
hearing.....though a plea for jail sentence has become infructuous now, the
Supreme Court should have nevertheless ordered that the Rs. 100 crore fine
imposed on Ms. Jayalalithaa by the trial court be paid. The fine should have
been recovered from her estate....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....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,” the review petition contends)
ROUND-UP OF CHEQUERED HISTORY OF THE CASE SPANNING OVER
21 YEARS
- Complaint against Ms J Jaylalitha for amassing disproportionate
wealth during her term as CM of Tamil Nadu during the check period from 01.07.1991 to 30.04.1996 by Dr. Subramanian Swamy (then President of Janata Party) on June 14, 1996 in the Court of Principal Sessions/Special Judge, Madras , under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.
-
By order dated 21.06.1996, the Principal Sessions
Judge/Special Judge, Madras directed investigation under Section 17 of 1988 Act
and Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and further directed to collect necessary materials
and submit a report before the Court within a period of two months.
-
Said investigation stayed by the Madras HC for a brief period and thereafter the High
Court directed the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madras to take
appropriate steps to investigate into the allegations made in the complaint and
ultimately on September 18, 1996, an FIR was filed against Ms
J Jaylalitha (A1) under Sections 13(1)(e) and
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 Act.
-
The incriminating evidence collected during such
investigation disclosed the complicity of Ms Sasikala Natarajan (A2), V.N.
Sudhakaran (A3) i.e. Sasikala’s
nephew and Jayalalitha’s foster son and J. Elavarasi (A4) i.e. Sasikala’s
sister-in-law in the alleged offence. Hence, an application was filed before the Special Judge
on 22.01.1997 for addition of A2, A3 and A4 as co-accused and for incorporation
of additional offences under Section 120-B of IPC read with Sections 13(2) and
13(1)(e) of 1988 Act and Section 109 of IPC.
-
On completion of such investigation, IO laid the charges
against all the accused on 4.6.1997 which was duly registered as Spl. C.C. No.7/97
on the file of the IX Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Court, I), Chennai.
Thereafter, the Court framed the charges against all the above accused persons.
-
The charges were denied by the accused persons.
-
During the pendency of the trial, the Court permitted
further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and granted letters
rogatory for collecting evidence and materials relating to the alleged accumulation
of disproportionate assets/wealth by A1 in conspiracy with A2 outside the Country.
On the basis of the evidence collected during further investigation, a separate
FIR in Crime No.2/AC/2000 was filed by the prosecution on 2.9.2000 against A1
and A2 which culminated into a charge-sheet dated 23.3.2001 registered as
Spl.C.C. No.2/2001.
-
Subsequent thereto prosecution evidence was recorded from
time to time. Thereafter, steps were taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C. So far as
A1 was concerned, she was permitted to answer a questionnaire which was
delivered to her with a direction to answer it on 25.2.2003, which was adhered
to by A1. A2 to A4 were also questioned as per Section 313 Cr.P.C. which was duly
concluded on 26.2.2003. Thereafter, defence witnesses were examined.
-
Thereafter, by its judgment dated 18.11.2003 in Transfer
Petition (Criminal) Nos.77-78/2003 moved at the instance of Sh. K Anbazhagan
(General Secretary, DMK) on Feb 28, 2003, the Supreme Court transferred the
said matter to the State of Karnataka and in terms of the said judgment, the
Government of Karnataka by its order dated 27.12.2003 duly accorded sanction
for establishment of the Special Curt at Bangalore and by Notification dated
19.02.2005, duly appointed Shri B.V. Acharya, Senior Advocate and former
Advocate General of Karnataka as Public Prosecutor to conduct the said matter.
-
Thereafter, the said matter bearing Spl.C.C. No.7/1997 was
renumbered as Spl.C.C. No.208/2004 and Spl.C.C. No.2/2001 was renumbered as
Spl.C.C. No.209/2004 on the file of the Special Judge (i.e. 36th Addl. City
Civil & Sessions Judge at Bangalore. Subsequent thereto certain steps were taken
on behalf of the accused and the matter travelled up to this Court/Supreme
Court whereafter the trial was resumed before the Special Judge. The accused
were called upon to examine their witnesses and subsequently 99 witnesses were produced
before the Court and concluded their evidence.
-
On September 27, 2014, the Court of Special Judge,
Banglore convicted all the accused persons and after hearing the learned
counsel awarded the following sentence against the accused persons:
“For the offence u/Sec. 13 (1) (e) R/w. Sec. 13 (2) of the 1988 Act, A1 Selvi.
J. Jayalalitha was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four years
and a fine of Rs.100 crores. In default to pay the fine amount, she was to
undergo further imprisonment for one year. For the offence punishable u/Sec.
120-B I.P.C., R/w. Sec. 13 (2) of 1988 Act, A1 was sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for six months and to
pay fine of Rs.1 lakh. In default to pay the fine, she
was to undergo further imprisonment for one month. For the offence punishable
u/Secs. 109 of I.P.C., R/w. Sec. 13 (2) of 1988 Act, A2 Tmt. Sasikala Natarajan,
A3 Tr. V.N. Sudhakaran and A4 Tmt. J. Eavarasi were sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of four years each and to pay fine of Rs.10 crores
each. In default to pay the fine amount, A2, A3 and A4 were each to undergo further
imprisonment for one year. For the offence punishable u/Sec. 120-B of I.P.C. R/w.
Sec. 13 (2) of 1988 Act, A2, A3 and A4 each were sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each. In
default to pay the fine amount, A2, A3 and A4 were each to undergo further imprisonment for one month.
Substantive sentences of imprisonment were to run concurrently. Period of
custody already undergone by the accused was be given set off u/Sec. 428 of
Cr.P.C. It was further ordered that,
necessary direction were to 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 were to be
appropriated and adjusted towards the fine amounts. If after adjustment, still the
fine fell 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 were to 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 were to 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 Phramaceuticals Ltd., which are under attachment pursuant to G.O. Nos. M.S.
120 and 1183, were be confiscated to the State Government. Out of the fine
amount recovered as above, a sum of Rs.5 crores was to be made over to the State of Karnataka towards
reimbursement of the cost of trial conducted in the State of Karnataka”.
- Being aggrieved, appeals were filed by the accused before
the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore challenging theorder passed by the
Court of 36th Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bangalore. The High
Court on its analysis came to the conclusion that the value of assets at the end
of the check period in respect of accused Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4 together along with
the firms/companies involved was Rs.66,44,73,537/- and accepted the value of
the assets as indicated by the prosecution. The High Court arrived at a
disproportionate assets of 8.12% and
following the principles laid down in Krishnanand Agnihotri Vs. The State
of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 769 = (1977) 1 SCC 816, held that when there is disproportionate asset
to the extent of 10% or below, the accused are entitled to acquittal and
accordingly the High allowed the Criminal Appeals and the Judgment of
Conviction and Sentence passed was set aside and Appellants-Accused Nos.1 to 4
were acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. Order of the Trial
Court relating to confiscation of the properties both movable and immovable was
also set aside.
- Assailing the judgment and order dated 11.05.2015, passed
by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, appeals, by special leave, were filed before Supreme Court by the State of Karnataka and Mr. K. Anbazhagan on
June 23, 2015. An Intervention application was also filed by original
complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy.
- The Hon’ble SC gave patient hearing to all the parties,
including the intervenor, in the matter. Written submissions and compilation of judgments were also taken
on record. Arguments thus concluded and Judgment was reserved on the 7th June, 2016. Liberty
was granted to the learned counsel for the parties to file final written
submissions/compilation of judgments, if any, by Friday, the 10th June, 2016.
- On 5th December 2016, the respondent No.1 (Ms J Jaylalitha) expired
and, thus in law by virtue of Section 394 of CrPC, the appeals against her
stood abated. Section 394(1) inter alia envisages abatement of appeal filed
under Section 378 in case of acquittal.
- Nevertheless,
in view of the gamut of the imputations and the frame-work of the charges as
well as the nature of the evidence, oral and documentary, available on records,
reference to her (respondent No.1 Ms J
Jaylalitha ) role and involvement, based thereon in collaboration with
other respondents was thoroughly
examined.
-
After traversing
through various documents and the evidence of the parties, the Hon’ble SC, on
February 14, 2017, set aside the judgment
and order of the High Court and affirmed and restored the judgment of the Trial
Court in toto against A2 to A4. However, though in the process of scrutiny of
the facts and the law involved and the inextricable nexus of A1 with A2 to A4, reference
to her (accused No. 1 Ms J Jaylalitha) role as well as the evidence pertaining
to her had been made, she having expired meanwhile, the appeals, so far as
those relate to her stood abated. Nevertheless, to reiterate, having regard to
the fact that the charges framed against A2 to A4 were proved, the conviction
and sentence recorded against them by the Trial Court is restored in full including
the consequential directions. The direction of the Trial Court towards
confiscation/forfeiture of the attached properties was restored.
Posts
