<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday said disproportionate assets per se is not a crime unless it is proved that such wealth was acquired through illicit means.<br /><br /></p>.<p>“Disproportionate assets per se is not a crime. If some of the income cannot be proved, then the offence is complete. Otherwise, it will only be an inference,” a bench of Justices P C Ghose and Amitava Roy said.<br /><br />The court's observation came as special public prosecutor B V Acharya, representing the Karnataka government, assailed the May 11 judgment of the Karnataka High Court, acquitting Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa and three others in the disproportionate assets case.<br /><br />The counsel submitted that the HC as well as trial court had considered assets, expenditure and income of all the accused jointly along with that of firms by accepting the case of the prosecution. So, the accused cannot now make out a case for considering the assets of the four accused, including the AIADMK chief, separately, he contended. <br /><br />To this, the bench asked, “Even if we assume that all the accused are together, will it per se lead to the conclusion that the money in circulation belonged to Accused 1 (Jayalalithaa) and it is not accounted for?”<br /><br />“Suppose you prove that all the accused are together and it is the same money of Accused no 1 that was being circulated. Does it lead to conviction? Will it mean that the money being pumped into those companies was from an income obtained from unknown sources?” the bench asked.<br /><br />Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, also appearing for Karnataka, called the HC verdict “perverse” since it “committed massive error” in calculating the total income of the AIADMK chief and others between 1991 and 1996 as 8.12% when it actually worked out to 76.7%. <br /><br />DMK leader K Anbazhagan and BJP leader Subramanian Swamy also challenged the acquittal of the AIADMK chief, her former aide Sasikala and two of her relatives, V N Sudhakaran and Elavarasi. </p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday said disproportionate assets per se is not a crime unless it is proved that such wealth was acquired through illicit means.<br /><br /></p>.<p>“Disproportionate assets per se is not a crime. If some of the income cannot be proved, then the offence is complete. Otherwise, it will only be an inference,” a bench of Justices P C Ghose and Amitava Roy said.<br /><br />The court's observation came as special public prosecutor B V Acharya, representing the Karnataka government, assailed the May 11 judgment of the Karnataka High Court, acquitting Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa and three others in the disproportionate assets case.<br /><br />The counsel submitted that the HC as well as trial court had considered assets, expenditure and income of all the accused jointly along with that of firms by accepting the case of the prosecution. So, the accused cannot now make out a case for considering the assets of the four accused, including the AIADMK chief, separately, he contended. <br /><br />To this, the bench asked, “Even if we assume that all the accused are together, will it per se lead to the conclusion that the money in circulation belonged to Accused 1 (Jayalalithaa) and it is not accounted for?”<br /><br />“Suppose you prove that all the accused are together and it is the same money of Accused no 1 that was being circulated. Does it lead to conviction? Will it mean that the money being pumped into those companies was from an income obtained from unknown sources?” the bench asked.<br /><br />Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, also appearing for Karnataka, called the HC verdict “perverse” since it “committed massive error” in calculating the total income of the AIADMK chief and others between 1991 and 1996 as 8.12% when it actually worked out to 76.7%. <br /><br />DMK leader K Anbazhagan and BJP leader Subramanian Swamy also challenged the acquittal of the AIADMK chief, her former aide Sasikala and two of her relatives, V N Sudhakaran and Elavarasi. </p>
