JOIN USSPP finds fault with calculation of DA in Jayalalitha judgement
A day after the High Court acquitted former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalitha in the disproportionate assets (DA) case, the Karnataka government-appointed Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) B V Acharya on Tuesday said that the judgement was erroneous as the special judge had wrongly calculated the DA of Jayalalitha as 8.12 per cent, while the actual percentage of DA is over 70 per cent.
Acharya pinpointed ‘glaring error’ in calculating the disproportionate assets of Jayalalitha saying that the total income should have been calculated as Rs 16,32,36,812 after deducting the bank loan of Rs 24,17,31,274.
“There is a glaring arithmetical error in arriving at the percentage as well as the income. This mistake has come to our notice just now,” Acharya told reporters.
Acharya said that Rs 16.32 crore of disproportionate assets amounts to around 76 per cent and not merely 8.12 per cent - the prominent ground for relief for Jayalalitha in the judgement by Justice Kumaraswamy, the judge of the special bench constituted to hear the appeals challenging the conviction of Jayalalitha and her associates.
Justice Kumaraswamy says that Jayalalitha had received loans of Rs 24 crore. But the calculated figure was just Rs 10 crore. There was a difference of Rs 14 crore, Acharya said.
The special bench judge Kumaraswamy had arrived at 8.12 per cent as the disproportionate assets (DA), after deducting the total income of Rs 34,76, 65,654 (Rs 34.76 crore), from the total assets of Rs 37,59,02,466 (Rs 37.59 crore), which will be about Rs 2,82,36, 812 (Rs 2.82 crore). The judge had divided Rs 2.82 crore by the total income of Rs 34.76 crore to arrive at 8.12 per cent disproportionate assets .
He said that if the State government decides to file an appeal in the Supreme Court, it would be a good case to get relief.
“I am considering all the options available, because in law, we are not sure what will be the options.
But one definite thing is, if it decides to file an appeal in the Supreme Court, this will be an excellent point on which the court is bound to grant relief,” he said.
Asked whether the government could seek review of a High Court judgement
pertaining to a criminal case, Acharya said he needed to examine the possibility.
Legal provisions
“Normally, a verdict given by the High Court with regard to a civil case can be reviewed in the Supreme Court. I need to examine whether a verdict in a criminal case can be
reviewed in the Supreme Court,” he said.
Acharya said that there were some legal provisions to review arithmetical errors, but they would have to be checked with the State law department.