Probe is DMK-inspired: Jaya tells court
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalitha has completed recording her replies to 1,339 questions pertaining to the Rs 66.6-crore disproportionate assets case.
On Wednesday, she submitted before the special court that the investigations against her were illegal and some of them were even outside the jurisdiction of the investigating authorities.
Defence counsel B Kumar said he had requested the court for an opportunity to present the defence evidence and expressed hope that the application would be considered after the other accused ––Sasikala, Ilavarasi and T V Sudhakaran–– record their statements.
She answered crucial questions about the police investigations and the related evidence presented by the prosecution. According to Advocate General B V Acharya, appearing on behalf of the prosecution, Jayalalitha is said to have contested that the complaint by Janata Party president Subramaniam Swamy, based on which the proceedings are being held, was false.
Stating that the whole case was fabricated, Acharya quoted her as saying: “The complaint filed by (Dr) Subramaniam Swamy itself is false and that is why the case was booked under Section 202.”
Elaborating on how/why the investigation was illegal, she is said to have submitted that the authorities had obtained search warrant only to search one of her properties (36) in Poes Garden, but they searched even the adjoining property (31-A) without a warrant, making it illegal.
Regarding raids and seizure of her properties in Hyderabad, she reportedly said: “The Madras (read Chennai) courts did not have jurisdiction to issue search warrants for properties not belonging within the State of Tamil Nadu, thereby making those searches illegal.”
Attacking the then ruling Dravida Munnettra Kazhagam (DMK) party for having initiated this case to defame her and tarnish her public image, Jayalalitha has submitted that there was no truth in several evidences, including one from a senior IAS officer who had submitted that she used them for her personal work. Kumar said: “She has made serious allegations that the whole case was fabricated and politically motivated and that there is evidence to prove the interference of the then Law Minister S Madhavan and senior Minister Arcot Veerasamy in the case.”
She has also questioned the authority of Nallam Naidu, a former IPS officer, in investigating her case. “He had permission only to look into Subramaniam Swamy’s complaint, but the investigation went beyond that at the instance of the DVAC (Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption),” Kumar quoted her as having said.
About the properties and wealth she acquired during the check period (1991-1996), she said: “Barring one property, 31-A, I have not acquired anything else, and I had appropriate income to purchase that property.” Acharya said she washed her hands of the wealth acquired by the firms she was a partner in by stating that “...she had nothing to do with that.”
Continuing her replies on the contentious wedding expenses of her foster son Sudhakaran, she was reported to have agreed that music director A R Rahman was present at the wedding and that he had also performed at the party.
“...But, even this was done at the request of the bride’s party and he did not receive any payment for that. However, it is true that he was given some silverware while extending the invitation for the wedding,” she was quoted as having said.
Back to City court
The completion of Jayalalitha’s statement recording, spread over three-and-a-half days when she answered 1,339 questions framed by the court on the basis of evidence provided by 259 witnesses, has shifted the case back to the regular City court.
“The court has ordered that the case will be henceforth heard at the regular court, where the remaining co-accused will be questioned. The case has been adjourned to November 29,” Acharya said, adding that Sasikala will be the next accused to be questioned.
At the end of the proceedings on Wednesday, Jayalalitha also filed a detailed statement, attesting voluminous documents, before the court.
