Jaya acquitted in assets case

HC relief: Disproportionate assets less than 10% of income

A special bench of the Karnataka High Court on Monday quashed a trial court order convicting AIADMK supremo J Jayalalitha and three others in an 18-year-old disproportionate assets case.

The bench headed by Justice C R Kumaraswamy observed that the accused are entitled for acquittal as the margin of disproportionate assets was within 10 per cent. 

Justice Kumaraswamy said that all the appeals have been allowed and Jayalalitha, Sasikala Natarajan, G Sudhakaran and Elavarasi are acquitted of all charges.

Discharging the bail bonds executed by them, the bench also set aside the trial court order to confiscate their movable and immovable properties.

“It is well settled law that according to judgment in the Krishnanand Agnihotri vs State of Madhya Pradesh, when there is disproportionate asset to the extent of 10 per cent, the accused are entitled for acquittal. The percentage of disproportionate assets here is 8.12 per cent, which is relatively small and within the permissible limit. The accused are entitled for acquittal. When the principal accused is entitled for acquittal, others who have played a lesser role are also entitled for acquittal,” the bench said.

He also cited a circular of the Andhra Pradesh government that disproportionate assets to the extent of 20 per cent can be considered as permissible.

While stating that the prosecution mixed up assets of the accused, firms and companies, Justice Kumaraswamy observed: “The cost of construction was exaggeratedly put at Rs 27.79 crore, while the marriage expenses were valued at Rs 6.45 crore. When these two are deducted, the assets of the accused accounts to Rs 37.59 crore.”
The assets were earlier valued at Rs 66.44 crore.

Stating that the trial court has come to a wrong finding, the bench said that the court should examine the evidence submitted by the prosecution.

While stating that the trial court had ignored the Income Tax proceedings as minimum evidentiary value, Justice Kumaraswamy observed: “It has not appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective. Though the trial court mentions about the loan availed by the accused to the tune of Rs 24 crore, it has erred in not considering the loan amount as an income.

Similarly, it has failed to examine the evidence relating to cost of construction at that relevant time and simply arrived at a conclusion that 20 per cent of the cost has to be reduced without appreciating the evidence on record, which is calculated on surmises and conjectures.”

On Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) B V Acharya’s contention that the appeals are not maintainable as the State has not been made a party to the petition, the court rejected it saying that the State had not appointed an SPP for a long time when the appeals were filed before this court challenging the trial court order.

“When the State of Karnataka was aware of hearing of these appeals and daily media reports about this case, pleading ignorance by the State of Karnataka and taking up contention that it is not maintainable is not sustainable,” the bench added.